Tell me about it. Lots of people do it, but there’s something about programming that brings the alpha nerds that think contrariness is by itself interesting or impressive. So boring to talk to these people — it’s impossible to build common ground as they will disagree or argue a point not because they actually believe their case, but because they think that’s how you sound smart in a conversation.
Yup. Mostly the US operates (both privately and in government) on an expectation of good behavior, and mostly it works. I believe this is referred to as a “high trust” society?
Yeah exactly the question. I doubt there’s an objective answer, more a subjective decision society makes about what is “right”.
Personally I’m fine with saying “I give you directions but it’s on you to execute them safely”. And incurring no liability. But if I intentionally direct you over a cliff (not just negligently, but intentionally) then I have some (but not 100% — after all, you still have to operate your vehicle safely) liability.
But again I think that’s pretty subjective, like it feels “fair” but who cares about my opinion?
If the facts as presented are indeed true, this suit seems to hinge on the question of whether entities publishing information intended for use have any liability at all? Like if you say “here’s information you can use for X” and then someone is harmed by using that information for X, do you (well, do publishers) have any responsibility ever?
Because if they do, and the facts are correct, you’d think that in this case they should. But maybe they just… never have any liability at all? And can make boatloads of cash without worrying.
Indeed I agree that it can be difficult or impossible to squeeze all the important information about a function into its signature! And why bother playing golf when that’s literally what the doc
string is for?
(Obviously you should endeavor to write good names anyway).
If you consistently break functions down into tiny “functionettes” the names of the functions can as easily lie to you. You start with `buildURL` but it gets complicated, you break part out into validating the URL, now it should be `buildAndValidateURL` but it’s never updated and the function name “lies”.
I suppose if you prefer to ignore comments, they are more likely to get out of date, which may be why your mileage varies.
Nope, you just sound like an asshole.