The strength of open-source
"Killing" seems like an inappropriate term for end-of-support though. That's clickbait to me.
How do you intend to present your GitHub portfolio to your potential employers? Nobody's going to do a full, in-depth, or even basic analysis of your repos unless maybe with automated tools or what GitHub itself provides.
Your CV and interview are much more important. Solutions [and projects] matter much more than details. Experience and that you can talk about your work or experience is much more important than technical details.
A hash table library doesn't sound like particularly noteworthy expertise. Adding a dependency and calling simple documented methods on it in a simple, standard behavior manner isn't noteworthy.
If you're implementing your own, I wonder if "simply" implies a non-noteworthy implementation, or in-depth exploration of hashing and storage indexing. The latter would be a different project though, putting your other on hold.
I don't see it making a difference for employers what you pick here specifically.
If you're interested in implementing one or learning about the technicalities of it go ahead. Otherwise use a library and continue with your project or other interests.
Disclaimer: I'm not in the recruiting space nor do I have that much or recent experience being interviewed/the broader companies hiring processes.
Yes, every unfamiliar language requires some learning. But I don't think the bash syntax is particularly approachable.
I searched and picked the first result, but this seems to present what I mean pretty well https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/248164/bash-if-syntax-confusion which doesn't even include the alternative if parens https://stackoverflow.com/questions/12765340/difference-between-parentheses-and-brackets-in-bash-conditionals
I find other languages syntaxes much more approachable.
I also mentioned the magic variable expansion operators. https://www.gnu.org/software/bash/manual/html_node/Shell-Parameter-Expansion.html
Most other languages are more expressive.
OP could pick any language and have the same problem. Except maybe Python, but even that strays into symbolic line noise once a project gets big enough.
Personally, I don't see python far off from bash. Decent for small scripts, bad for anything bigger. While not necessarily natively available, it's readily available and more portable (Windows), and has a rich library ecosystem.
Personally, I dislike the indent syntax. And the various tooling and complexities don't feel approachable or stable, and structuring not good.
But maybe that's me. Many people seem to enjoy or reach for python even for complex systems.
More structured and stable programming languages do not have these issues.
that assumes you don't write any SQL
I love the description as well. "One." "Zero."
I found the comments/answers about backwards compatibility of not defined booleans and negative true interesting and plausible.
What I first thought of was that TRUE and FALSE can be redefined, so it serves as ensurance that within the library consistent values are being used no matter what other libs and callers do with their typing and definitions.
Microsoft SQL Server has a bit type and you always use 0 and 1 and cast/convert them. No native bool type. It's a hassle.
In your own description you added a bunch of considerations, requirements of following specific practices, having specific knowledge, and a ton of environmental requirements.
For simple scripts or duck tape schedules all of that is fine. For anything else, I would be at least mindful if not skeptical of bash being a good tool for the job.
Bash is installed on all linux systems. I would not be very concerned about some dependencies like sqlite, if that is what you're using. But very concerned about others, like jq, which is an additional tool and requirement where you or others will eventually struggle with diffuse dependencies or managing a managed environment.
Even if you query sqlite or whatever tool with the command line query tool, you have to be aware that getting a value like that into bash means you lose a lot of typing and structure information. That's fine if you get only one or very few values. But I would have strong aversions when it goes beyond that.
You seem to be familiar with Bash syntax. But others may not be. It's not a simple syntax to get into and intuitively understand without mistakes. There's too many alternatives of if-ing and comparing values. It ends up as magic. In your example, if you read code, you may guess that :- means fallback, but it's not necessarily obvious. And certainly not other magic flags and operators.
As an anecdote, I guess the most complex thing I have done with Bash was scripting a deployment and starting test-runs onto a distributed system (and I think collecting results? I don't remember). Bash was available and copying and starting processes via ssh was simple and robust enough. Notably, the scope and env requirements were very limited.
😎
Share yours here too?
Let's put a story point estimation on that. Then we can extrapolate time range and risk.
27
Edgio files for bankruptcy, Microsoft has to update some dotnet CDN URLs that used azureedge.net domain
(devblogs.microsoft.com)
ffaattaall eerrrroorr UU11005588: : tteerrmmiinnaatteedd bbyy uusseerr
10
Dramatically faster package restores with .NET 9's new NuGet resolver - .NET Blog
(devblogs.microsoft.com)
view more: next ›
The main things a social media presence does is give exposure, which can then lead to interest and [mental] investment.
Without those things, the game disappears in a mass of titles on a huge platform. How are people supposed to find it? Luck?
Even if it's a good game, it's a harsh environment.
Traditionally, publishers did promotional work to increase exposure. If you publish as an indie onto Steam, without an exposure strategy, you have to have an exceptional product or exceptional luck to be successful.
I can empathize with their frustrations though. Working long and hard on something, especially if it's a good product, being satisfied with just the fact that it's a good product, with no/little audience, success, or financial success, is hard to swallow.