Yeah some of the issues with error handling are pretty serious. I would say in C++ it could be useful only for simple “nothrow” routines for basic object configuration; this would apply for cases when the configurations should happen after construction.
Aside from that I wouldn’t use it for complex algorithms.
It’s almost like a weird intersection between functional and object oriented paradigms.
But there’s not much benefit from these two approaches:
rect.setHeight(125).setWidth(250);
rect.setHeight(125);
rect.setWidth(250);
That being said, for algorithms similar in spirit to the chaining I think the C# Linq language is a good example of something that works well in a “chained” fashion.
I pooped and scooped the poop said the Malloy to me be free. Along came the scoop and scoop it went. Free it did. In the bucket it tumbled for the others to enjoy.
Hmm. You could also argue that not having understanding of the technology is a good thing. For instance, the judge can remove themselves from the details and look at it on a higher level.
It’s the job of the attorneys to make the case for or against using subject matter experts etc.
Yeah that’s the difference between a “blank stare” in the interview and a decent response. Anyone applying for a database position should know that relates to transactions and yadda-yadda. They should know why transactions are important, etc.
But… I’d like to say this is the kind of problem these quick-boot coding schools fall short on. Sure one can learn programming language X, but that doesn’t mean one has any sort of fundamentals in algorithms, data structures or general database technology.
Yeah I agree with the idea of pivoting. I suppose to clarify:
* Pivoting would leverage existing technology built in the process of initial concept. Which to me is the equivalent of scrapping the initial idea (while salvaging the generally-useful IP/technology).
* Adding a bunch of tangential features to a product to increase revenue is a colossal fuckup scenario (maybe the language is a bit over dramatic).
For instance, Google is great at search; gmail is cool; docs was innovative (albeit limited); and then… https://killedbygoogle.com/
Unfortunately, after seeing this time and time again it’s tough for me to get behind mainstream tech. I loved the old Microsoft/Nokia phones; and the Zune. You can tell a lot or love went into the design/engineering but then projects just get axed by corporate interests.
Meanwhile, you can by a mechanical device or appliance from 1950s and it’ll still work just fine.
I think the Unix philosophy should apply here. The fact that WhatsApp did one thing well and it had a good business model (was it $1 per year?) is the important bit.
When you say, “Now the app does dating…” I think the right move is to scrap the project because that’s a colossal fuckup. Unless you have Microsoft cash to have multiple colossal fuckups in a row, don’t add another dating app to your messaging app. Ergo, less is more.
WhatsApp probably started with passion and a solid vision. The Zuckerberg gave them an offer they couldn’t refuse. Anyone will take 19 billion for a basket full of Indian users.
Another thing WhatsApp did well is they targeted ALL phones. They didn’t abandon their users like the fang-bangers (sorry been watching True Blood— FAANG is an annoying acronym so they are hereby fang-bangers).
The browser has a search bar at the top of the page; Amazon has a search bar at the top of the page.
Ergo it’s actually bad UX design. Thinking desktop UX if that was an “Amazon app” there would be ONE singular search bar.
To make matters worse, Windows has a search bar in start (usually at the bottom); browser has a search bar (at the top); some websites have their own search bar; file explorer has its own search bar.
You get the point: bad UX design enforced by assumptions made at each layer of the OS/browser/website. Many out of the control of users and developers alike. Nonetheless, it’s overcrowding the UX with redundancy.
Historically speaking, users had an ability to “find stuff” on their system but it was never by an implicit “search bar”; users had to explicitly do something like: file -> find prior to entering search query.
The web browser was the one with the search bar (having one job: entering URLs not search terms) and when websites had a search feature it was typically placed in the middle of site or somewhere else (typically reserved for search terms).
Modern UX can be ridiculous in ways devs put too much emphasis on these “automatic” components. Like the annoying page header that suddenly scrolls with content and takes up 1/3 of the page. Ack! Don’t even get me started.
If you throw a vase in the air it will fall down and shatter: like, duh it’s gravity. But how many years to figure the equations? To tie the how/why to the obvious?
Don’t trivialize their work because your work didn’t receive a Nobel. K thanks.
These discoveries could be game changers for prosthetics, brain computer interfaces, augmented reality, etc.
There’s the other side of the spectrum as well: what the influencers seek to gain by amplifying criticisms for any odd remark.
Just think of the whole anti-vaccine movements and the spread of misinformation. Folks come out of the woodwork and claim a myriad of side effects but they have no background to scientifically vet the published vaccine research.
Influencers leveraging fear and confusion as a way to amplify bias and shame people making positive comments on a vaccine.
And this generates them massive followings and potentially increases “social status”.
Curiously I’m seeing somewhat of a proportional trend: as peoples ability to amplify misinformation increases, so does the value of censorship. This is kind of scary to be honest—to say that censorship has inherent value in our society.
All it takes is one climate-science denier to change 50% of the population’s opinion. Or to convince the public that one pro-vaccine comment is the scourge of humanity.
EDIT: Just got a downvote and reflecting on how the down-vote makes me feel; how should I proceed? Should I defend my comment? Do I want more social karma on this website? Am I being punished for my opinion. How’s that for some introspection…
There’s obviously good things provided by tech (otherwise folks wouldn’t have started using it). A social network is a good thing in theory.
The problem is not the technological concept itself but where and how we consume it (e.g every 30 seconds). Keep in mind Facebook started when mobiles were somewhat limited and children had flip phones if at all. And on those, “background apps” were scarcely a thing.
Nowadays, people are like zombies—and more time is spend wasting away in front of multimédia than providing value to the world.
Hmm. This feels a bit wrong to me. Double period makes longer pause, and wedged between a quote it doesn’t flow well:
.”. Feels like a visual stutter.
Either .” or “. are more final and visually stable.
I’d argue depending on whether the pause affected by the period is important to the quote itself, put it in the quote. Then again, a block-quotation is probably more suitable for that scenario. Personally, for basic quotes in prose I’d put the period on the outside of quote because that directs readers to pause after the quote ends, not before.
It’s pretty astounding if this isn’t flagged as monopolistic behavior.
I’m not opposed to Apple introducing a system keyboard as a clone but the independent developer should not be strong-armed off their platform.
Honestly it just shows weakness of character for the entire Apple company. This is no different than voter suppression when candidates can’t garner votes from the public legitimately.
Oh wait, I guess half the government is fine with voter suppression and whining like 4 yr olds about voter fraud.
That’s the new Apple for you…
Then again, they have the power and capability to make this move. Whose to blame them? A keyboard is something that should be locked down from a security standpoint and a fundamental piece of the system.
That being said you won’t catch me ten feet near an Apple Watch as a dev. Or as a citizen—that is a huge privacy concern. Not to mention the battery life is shit. I tried one for a week and couldn’t bear to have 3 charging cables by my bed at night. I would need at least a week but 2 weeks charge would be ideal…
“ Most investigations apparently involved veterans, some of whom had unfavorable discharge records.3”
Honestly, you’re going to have bad apples no matter what. But what about the rest of the citizens? How can they respond to disaster scenarios without training?
Domestic terrorism is the same thing as abroad terrorism, except one uses patriotism as an ideology, the other uses religion.
Aside from that I wouldn’t use it for complex algorithms.
It’s almost like a weird intersection between functional and object oriented paradigms.
But there’s not much benefit from these two approaches:
rect.setHeight(125).setWidth(250);
rect.setHeight(125); rect.setWidth(250);
That being said, for algorithms similar in spirit to the chaining I think the C# Linq language is a good example of something that works well in a “chained” fashion.