Maybe that example was made terrible because the author couldn’t think of a good ways to show how great this can be. I’m obviously a fan of SOLID, and OCP is exactly why I don’t worry if I have only one class at the beginning. Because I know eventually requirements would change and I’d end up with more classes.

Some time ago I was asked by a less experienced coworker during a code review why I wrote a particularly complex piece of code instead just having a bunch of if statements. Eventually this piece got extended to do several other things, but because it was structured well, extending it was easy with minimum impact for the code-base. This is why design matters.

Above claims are based on nearly 2 decades of writing software, 3/4 of it in big companies with very complex requirements.

I wouldn’t say that inheritance is for avoiding code duplication. It should be used to express “is a” relationship. An example seen in one of my projects: a mixin with error-handling code for a REST service client used for more than one service has log messages tightly coupled to a particular service. That’s exactly because someone thought it was ok to reuse.

In my opinion, inheritance makes sense when you can follow Liskov’s principle. Otherwise you should be careful.

I keep telling myself that in the ideal world, phones would be programmed in Forth.

That comment… Oh my, I want to joke and talk someone like you! Now!

I tried searching for research on it, but only found results claiming this didn’t work… Not actual scientific research, but better than “we think this should work, so now we’ll try selling it”

And “Y” stands for “Your Mom”. But it was a one night stand…

C Tesseract has this interstellar vibe and brings quotes like the following, but with a totally different meaning:

• “Years of [compilation error] messages”
• “People disn’t build this Tesseract”; “Not yet… But one day. Not you and me but people, people who’ve evolved beyond the four dimensions we know”
• “You’ve got to leave something behind”

I’m trying to convince a senior developer from the team I’m a member of, to stop using copilot. They have committed code that they didn’t understand (only tested to verify it does what it’s expected to do). I doubt it’d succeed…

They’ve got Paid BSOD, I’ve got FreeBSD, we’re not the same.

You were so close! The right solution is of course training an AI model that detects credentials and rejects commits that contain them!

I’m not ignoring the other two things listed, I’m realistic.

You described it like it was something rare for FAANG to do bad things. Or like it was bad only when it required whistleblowing… Think how many things got crushed by EEE tactics, and it’s only one class of examples of why big tech is inherently bad.

You could say the same about eating meat or any other cause. What’s the difference, the animal is already dead anyway, right? Well, it’s not that simple.

Thanks to the growing number of people who eat less or no meat at all, meat production is decreasing. If all of them kept saying that one man boycott makes no difference, the change would not come.

If you can’t find a better job - fine, work for the evil FAANG or whatever. We live in capitalism and it’s clear we need to work somewhere. But at least be honest and don’t look away from inconvenient truth. There’s still something good you could do while keeping the job at $evil_company. For example, you can support financially those who haven’t got nice jobs in IT.

If the person who drew that comic understood anything about complex systems or why agile works when used properly, it could make sense. But it doesn’t.

I love Lisp dialects!