This thread is a great example to why despite sharing knowledge we continually fail to write software effectively.
The person you're arguing with just doesn't get it. They have their own reality.
douglasg14b
joined 2 years ago
I have a weird knack for reverse engineering, and reverse engineering stuff I've written 7-10 years ago is even easier!
I tend to be able to find w/e snippet I'm looking for fast enough that I can't be assed to do it right yet 😆
That's one of the selling points, yep
To be fair Microsoft has been working on Garnet for something like 4+ years and have already adopted it internally to reduce infrastructure costs.
Which has been their MO for the last few years. Improve .Net baseline performance, build high performance tools on top of it, dog food them, and then release them under open source licenses.
Great timing that Microsoft just released a drop-in replacement that's in order of magnitude faster: https://github.com/microsoft/garnet
Written in C# too, so it's incredibly easy to extend and write performant functions for.
It needs to be a bit more deployable though but they only just opened the repo, so I'll wait.
The designers as seen by designers is so right.
Nothing they come up with can be wrong, it's all innovative!!
.Net 8 will work on Linux just fine. But winforms will not, it's specifically a legacy windows-only UI framework.
You're going to have to jump through some incredible hoops to get it to work on Linux. Which are definitely not part of your normal curriculum.
C# on non-Windows is not impossible, but it's going to require effort infeasible for school projects like that one.
You mean winforms (The windows specific UI) on non-Windows? Otherwise this is incredibly misleading, and plain wrong.
C# in non windows is the norm, the default even, these days. I build, compile, and run, my C# applications in linux , and have been for the last 5+ years.
IMHO it's unnecessary at this juncture, and further fragments already vastly under engaged communities (.Net & C#)
Posts about .Net & friends fit into the .Net community. It's not so busy that a new community needs to break off to direct traffic & posts to.
This is actually a common failing point/pain point for low traffic or "growing phase" communities & platforms. Fragmentation reduces engagement, and below a certain threshold it just straight dies. Avoiding unnecessary fragmentation until such time as it serves a purpose helps communities grow faster.
To highlight this: the number of mods you are suggesting this community should have to handle TZ coverage is more than the average number of comments on posts in the .Net community today...
I go full chaos and look up where I last used it when I need a snippet...
The follow on. Lots and LOTS of unrelated changes can be a symptom of an immature codebase/product, simply a new endeavor.
If it's a greenfield project, in order to move fast you don't want to gold plate or over predictive future. This often means you run into misc design blockers constantly. Which often necessitate refactors & improvements along the way. Depending on the team this can be broken out into the refactor, then the feature, and reviewed back-to-back. This does have it's downsides though, as the scope of the design may become obfuscated and may lead to ineffective code review.
Ofc mature codebases don't often suffer from the same issues, and most of the foundational problems are solved. And patterns have been well established.
/ramble
This is a weird take given that the majority of projects relevant to this article are massive projects with hundreds or thousands of developers working on them, over time periods that can measure in decades.
Pretending those don't exist and imagining fantasy scenarios where all large projects are made up of small modular pieces (while conveniently making no mention to all of the new problems this raises in practice).
Replace functions replace files and rewrite modules, that's expected and healthy for any project. This article is referring to the tendency for programmers to believe that an entire project should be scrapped and rewritten from scratch. Which seems to have nothing to do with your comment...?