I’ve definitely seen “this is more correct, but all the other code does it like this so can you change it?”
I can’t say I entirely disagree with it either - usually the “more correct” is not “the existing code doesn’t work at all”, and keeping it consistent makes it easier to fix all of the code later, because you’re only fixing one style instead of two (or more).
No, they’re inherently optional in Git. There’s no way to “check in” a git hook. You have to put in your README
Clone the repo and then please run
pre-commit install! Oh and whatever you do don’tgit commit --no-verify!
You definitely need to actually check the lints in CI. It’s very easy though, just add pre-commit run -a to your CI script.
So… to store encrypted data that only the user can decrypt you don’t need any fancy zero knowledge algorithms. Just have the user keep the encryption key.
For authentication you could use one of these algorithms. OPAQUE seems to be popular. I’m not an expert but it seems like it has several neat zero-knowledge style properties.
But probably forget about implementing it without a strong background in cryptography.
To check that people ran the pre-commit linters.
Committing itself won’t be possible
That’s not how pre-commit hooks work. They’re entirely optional and opt-in. You need CI to also run them to ensure people don’t forget.
You need them in CI anyway to check people have actually done that, but yeah you definitely don’t need to have CI automatically fix formatting and commit the fixes. That’s crazy.
Yeah true. It definitely has downsides. But so does begging corporations for money…
Pretty unclear if this has any actual teeth - if you don’t pay it says “don’t create issues” etc. but is anyone going to stop you?
But let’s assume that it did stop you. I’m going to give a dissenting opinion - I don’t think it’s a necessarily bad idea. Phabricator had that business model for years; without paying you got zero support. No ability to open issues, etc.
My company ended up paying for support… so that we could get support. There’s absolutely no way they would have paid if it was a standard license and you could just open a GitHub issue, even if the issues were ignored.
Annoying for non-corporate users though I guess.
Normally when I merge a PR I put the long PR message (if there is one) in the merge commit (again if there is one), rather than shitty Merge PR from patch1 that people seem to use.
You can actually change the behaviour on GitHub to be sane: https://blog.mergify.com/how-to-change-the-default-commit-message-on-github/amp/
If I’m not keeping the branch (usually PRs are not big enough to make preserving multiple commits useful) then I squash & merge which gives you the chance to edit the commit message and copy details from the PR message in.
Seems like one of the areas where Rust is least pressing, but I guess if uutils does become dominant it will be a lot easier to work on the code and add new features & tools.
What on earth are you talking about? There’s no enshittification here.
It’s not a step further. They just picked 0 twice instead of 0, 1, 2, 3…
It’s just this: https://westling.dev/b/extremely-linear-git
That would be very difficult because Typescript isn’t sound.
Based on my experience of AI coding I think this will only work for simple/common tasks, like writing a Python script download a CSV file and convert it to JSON.
As soon as you get anywhere that isn’t all over the internet it starts to bullshit.
But if you’re working in a domain it’s decent at, why not? I found in those cases fixing the AI’s mistakes can be faster than writing it myself. Actually often I find it useful for helping me decide how I want to write code because the AI does something dumb, and I go “no I obviously don’t want it like that”…
deleted by creator
600?? Did you automate it or something?
Definitely the best option.
Yeah that is true. Not all IDEs support that though.
Doesn’t seem that bad to me, but I’m not a junior, or in the US.
Honestly I think the complaints about the job market are overblown. If you are good then there will always be a job for you somewhere.
If you’ve already tried programming and you enjoy it then it is a really great career. Crazy money (especially in the US) for low effort and low responsibility.
Just be aware that CS is usually a lot more theoretical than most programming. You’ll be learning about things like Hoare logic and category theory. Tons of stuff you only really need in the real world if you’re doing formal verification or compiler design.
Still, I kind of wish I did have that theoretical background now I am doing formal verification and compiler design! (I did a mechanical engineering degree.)
Also you don’t need a CS degree to get a programming job. I did a survey of colleagues once to see what degree they had and while CS was the most common, fewer than half had one. Most had some kind of technical degree (maths, physics, etc.), but some had done humanities and one guy (who was very good!) didn’t have a degree at all.
I wouldn’t worry about the market. Maybe take a look at the syllabus for places you might apply to, e.g. here’s the one for Cambridge. Also I guess an important question is what’s the alternative? What would you do otherwise?