Rust dev, I enjoy reading and playing games, I also usually like to spend time with friends.

You can reach me on mastodon @sukhmel@mastodon.online or telegram @sukhmel@tg

  • 1 Post
  • 506 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 3rd, 2023

help-circle
  • Well, as they say, “common sense is not very common”, but thinking a bit before rushing in may always do good.

    about the "quote"

    It actually should read

    It is sometimes said, common sense is very rare

    as written by Voltaire, it appears, but I didn’t know that and only met derivatives of this quote.


  • It’s the number of the signal sent, 9 is for SIGKILL. You can send various signals with kill, and depending on how application was made it may react on all signals with dying, or meaningfully process most of them. Afaik, SIGKILL can’t be processed by the app, and it always means just that: “die already”.

    Checked in Wikipedia, that’s about right but there are more details I left out, mostly because didn’t know about them, too: POSIX signals





  • First of all, thank you for a thoughtful response, I was too snarky, sorry about that.

    TL;DR: guess I’m just upset that there is no objective way of measuring how much knowledge is required, and trying to read everything from sources list would take forever.

    Yeah, the last point is sort of a strawman, although I meant it not to highlight that explanations should be given in terms that the reader is used to, but rather that the reader may have quite arbitrary amount of prior knowledge.

    I agree that there probably should be some shared context, what bugs me is that people tend to vary a lot in what amount of context is considered to be required. And more than once have I met papers that require deciphering even if you have some context and kind of come from the field they are written for. I used to think that this is our of malice to make reproducing their work harder for others, but maybe it was just an assumption of much larger shared context.

    Tables markdown work in some clients, afaik, but I don’t remember which, and even if I saw it or imagined it





  • So, you’ve got no issues with “g” being sometimes kinda “h”, “j” being same kind of “h” always, “h” not being a sound a all, “d” sounding like “th”, and “z” sounding like “th” but another “th”, not the one for “d”. Oh, and “c” sounding either like “k” or like the latter “th”

    I know some people that claim that everyone should use Latin alphabet, because you then know what things sound like, but that is the most bullshit take I ever heard. I guess that knowing how to write letters helps, but it looks like every other language pronounces those letters different, and English makes extra effort to pronounce different even the same things


  • lad@programming.devtoProgrammer Humor@programming.devA Guessing Game
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    12 days ago

    So, in the end you just do assume everyone to know the “common sense” one-letter notation for everything. Well, not everything, but the essential ten thousands of entities for sure /s

    This sounds like No true Scotsman fallacy to me

    I find it a bit contradicting to the very point you made about defining variables. If anything, one might be some home-grown genius that has real business getting into details but only ever used Chinese characters as variables

    Edit: forgot to set language










  • rather strongly typed Java.

    [In Java] you can also violate many of the type rules whenever you want or need to

    Okay. Well maybe being able to not spell out types every single time would also count as not burdening the programmer ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

    I bought Clean Code when I started learning programming, some of it was useful, but now I understand that it was too opinionated for a beginner

    Edit: also

    Whose job is it to manage that risk? Is it the language’s job? Or is it the programmer’s job[?]

    It is language’s job to enforce risk management wherever possible, humans are demonstrated time and time again to be poor at risk management (same for the other questions like ‘whose job it is to check for nulls’

    Edit2:

    Defects are the fault of programmers. It is programmers who create defects

    … and that is why he proposes to not help programmers with language means. I never thought that views of how problems should be tackled might differ so much while having in mind the same reasons and goals.

    Albeit I do agree that one must write tests, even if language helps, not everything can reasonably be automatically checked