strictfp

I agree in principle. But one major headache for us has been upgrading the database software without downtime. Is there any solution that does this without major headaches? I would love some out-of-the-box solution.

I'm happy to see some new Rust web frameworks that are doing away with attributes and returning to good old iron programmatic style. I might port some old plugins of mine from iron to Warp or Tide. Any opinions on which one to pick?

Singleton pattern == global variable

Having one instance of a class that's being passed around isn't bad. The singleton pattern with what's effectively a global variable , accessible from anywhere, is bad though.

It's hard to survive in the presence of a constant onslaught of forces trying to break you down. Plus we have another way of surviving: multiplying. And multiplying gives us mutations as well, i.e better fitness. So why should our organism optimize for longlivety?

A good "setting" is something that's part of the normal UI. Take brush size in Photoshop as a simple example.

You obviously don't want to set that in some control panel. So you just integrate it into the main UI.

I think one should strive to do the same with most settings.

Only true to a certain extent. Is the judicial power not separate from politics? Maybe not completely, but it has measures in place to secure some type of autonomy.

What I'm talking about is removing micromanagement and ensuring that the institution is trusted.

How about giving the institutions very top-level goals, on say 20 or 50-year basis, and then just give them a bag of money?

Research is a high stakes, high rewards type of game. You need to pursue many potential ways forward, and most likely only one will win.

Rewarding short term wins makes academia no different from industry, and prevents finding anything but the local maxima.

I wasn't social media that eroded the trust in research and science, it was the introduction of politics.

We need to separate research from politics. It needs to be a separate pillar of the state. You don't want reseachers chasing funds continously and doing short-term research for local sponsors. You want sizeable investments in long-term research projects, high autonomy and following of the scientific method. This way people would trust the results.

A few things;

1. Merging often and early might be viable, but it might also expose your colleagues and the codebase to your exploratory process, which might or might not be desired/possible. If you're making semi-permanent changes like API modifications or database table updates, going this route will mean a lot of extra work.

2. Too many chefs. If you open up for too many questions at the start, you will get a gazillion conflicting opinions thrown at you. You'll need to limit the audience somehow, or bring forward a clear idea or opinion. This leads to developers working a bit on the side. I don't mind this, I think it's good to give autonomy to working groups and let them make mistakes, as long as there is coaching or feedback in place in the long run.

3. If you go the route of designing a bit on the side first, to save time compared to 1), you might suddenly find yourself in the situation that the major parts feel quite done. Adding polish is now just a minor addition to what you're already accomplished, so you might do that before putting up the PR. This means that a complete solution showing up as a PR doesn't necessarily mean that it was over-engineered or overly polished on the side.

4. Not "syncing" too often saves time; less context switching, distracting information, and time to reflect on decisions and design.

Yes. And additionally, you're going to be context-switched constantly by people wanting to show off their days work. No thank you.

You can just let some people make mistakes, and give them feedback on it for next time. That way, you get autonomy and eventually mastery.

We don't all have to agree on everything. I think that's a fallacy.

Yup. In my book it makes zero sense to group by application. Grouping might make sense if it was per-usecase or manual, but that's really what virtual desktops are for. So grouping just feels useless to me.

WHAT? They skipped all the way from Lisp to JS? Why?

In my opinion we need to ditch the old idea of hiring more people to speed up feature delivery, and focus more on streamlining the codebase and making it easy to make changes to it.

Adding more manpower works around an inefficient codebase by writing more code on the side, and so we get a growing Rube Goldberg machine, no matter if we do monolith or 4000 microservices.

Sorry, but D is a good idea and much closer to golang in my book, plus a lot earlier. They just didn't have the funding.

I have to object here and say that out-of-date comments are better than no comments. I've worked in organizations with "no comments" policies and having no clue what people ever planned to achieve with a piece of code is worse than some old misguided explanation for sure.

This line of thinking is just an extension of everyday thinking of far too many people.

Take nuclear reactors as an example. Some people seem to legitimately think that its possible to eliminate all sources of errors in such an immensely complex system. If there's been an accident, the analysis is generally "we have to add sections in the manual for this specific scenario and we'll be safe", rather than accepting that it's impossible to prevent all errors and that it's merely a question of time before the next anomaly arises.

This. Management needs to understand the value of "tinkerers" and "massagers". They're immensely valuable, but since they don't have a direct production output, managers rarely understand the value they provide.

Without them, quality degrades and you get a lot of busy work from working in inefficient systems.

Thanks! If you don't mind explaining, what are we seeing here?

You're right in that it might be the only viable option for some usecases, but that doesn't make it good. It makes it passable :)

Thanks for the tip! I had a look but Roslynator seems to be C# only, and I'm coding C++.

I use self-deprecating humor a lot. And some people, usually the ones who don't pick up on the irony, also use it as an opportunity to attack. It's quite sad when you think about it :)

Yes, I have. And although Microsoft claim otherwise, I find intellisense sorely lacking in a lot of areas. Indexing is bad, search is bad, and their refactorings miss the mark a lot of the time. It's clear that Jetbrains lexical analysis is a lot better. I can search for implementers, find usages, rename and restructure without thinking twice, most of the time.

ReSharper has been really slow, yes, but it's also much better than intellisense and noticably better than Visual Assist. As of now, it's at least usable for me. Have to turn off full solution scanning, but other than that it works.

I agree that the general experience is degraded by ReSharper, sometimes severely, but VS is just too dumb without it, IMHO.

Sure, I'm aware and have ReSharper C++ plus the clang linting enabled.

VS isn't all too shabby, they've been shaping up recently. But it certainly isn't the best, or even among the better, in my opinion. Even the file editor is pretty weak compared to other editors IMO.

I can't use file view, since it has some side-effect that messes up our solution completely. And before you blame me, it's a cmake import.

I'm not angry, I just don't think it's fair to claim that VS is a good IDE.

If that's all you expect from an IDE, I understand why you're happy with VS :D

I'm one! I work with VS daily and I think it's pretty bad. Some examples; I cannot get a plain folder view. Intellisense is very inept compared to Jetbrains products. Bad refactor support, can't find things you're looking for etc. File tabs are hard to keep organized. The source control support has been worst of the worst up util recently (blame view taking minutes to show up etc), and now it's only mediocre. Best way to find stuff is through "find all", which is an order of magnitude slower than grep. "Track changes" resets on file close, not when you save or commit, making it rather useless. VS also crashes quite frequently if you aren't gentle with keypresses. Single-threaded plugin model causing keyboard input lag. Etc etc. I could go on.

The good parts of VS is hot-reload (when it works), the debugger, and the profiler. Otherwise I'm not a fan.

Not Invented Here

I got into gamedev in my thirties. The last few years was baptism by fire but it's loads of fun.

Money problems.