The article makes some interesting points, but the author shows a complete detachment from reality by advocating against CloudFormation and CDK with simplistic and twisted logic (if any).
An interesting read in spite of this.
IMO, fork is the best git client for macOS/Windows
At first glance it looks like a SourceTree clone. What does fork provide that SourceTree doesn't?
Does anyone have any good sources or suggestions on how I could look to try and begin to improve documentation within my team?
Documentation in software projecte, more often than not, is a huge waste of time and resources.
If you expect your docs to go too much into detail, they will quickly become obsolete and dissociated from the actual project. You will need to waste a lot of work keeping them in sync with the project, with little to no benefit at all.
If you expect your docs to stick with high-level descriptions and overviews, they quickly lose relevance and become useless after you onboard to a project.
If you expect your docs to document usecases, you're doing it wrong. That's the job of automated test suites.
The hard truth is that the only people who think they benefit from documentation are junior devs just starting out their career. Their need for docs is a proxy for the challenges they face reading the source code and understanding how the technology is being used and how things work and are expected to work. Once they go through onboarding, documentation quickly vanishes from their concerns.
Nowadays software is self-documenting with combination of three tools: the software projects themselves, version control systems, and ticketing systems. A PR shows you what code changes were involved in implementing a feature/fixing a bug, the commit logs touching some component tells you how that component can and does change, and ticketing shows you the motivation and the context for some changes. Automated test suites track the conditions the software must meet and which the development team feels must be ensured in order for the software to work. The higher you are in the testing pyramid, the closer you are to document usecases.
If you care about improving your team's ability to document their work, you focus on ticketing, commit etiquette, automated tests, and writing clean code.
The only (arguably*) baseless claim in that quote is this part:
You do understand you're making that claim on the post discussing the proposal of Safe C++ ?
And to underline the absurdity of your claim, would you argue that it's impossible to write a"hello, world" program in C++ that's not memory-safe? From that point onward, what would it take to make it violate any memory constraints? Are those things avoidable? Think about it for a second before saying nonsense about impossibilities.
Custom methods won't have the benefit of being dealt with as if they shared specific semantics, such as being treated as safe methods or idempotent, but ultimately that's just an expected trait that anyone can work with.
In the end, specifying a new standard HTTP method like QUERY extends some very specific assurances regarding semantics, such as whether frameworks should enforce CRSF tokens based on whether a QUERY has the semantics of a safe method or not.
If you could reliably write memory safe code in C++, why do devs put memory safety issues intontheir code bases then?
That's a question you can ask to the guys promoting the adoption of languages marketed based on memory safety arguments. I mean, even Rust has a fair share of CVEs whose root cause is unsafe memory management.
From the article.
Josh Aas, co-founder and executive director of the Internet Security Research Group (ISRG), which oversees a memory safety initiative called Prossimo, last year told The Register that while it's theoretically possible to write memory-safe C++, that's not happening in real-world scenarios because C++ was not designed from the ground up for memory safety.
That baseless claim doesn't pass the smell check. Just because a feature was not rolled out in the mid-90s would that mean that it's not available today? Utter nonsense.
If your paycheck is highly dependent on pushing a specific tool, of course you have a vested interest in diving head-first in a denial pool.
But cargo cult mentality is here to stay.
However, we’re still implementing IPv6, so how long until we could actually use this?
We can already use custom verbs as we please: we only need to have clients and servers agree on a contract.
What we don't have is the benefit of high-level "batteries included" web frameworks doing the work for us.
So that’s where I would say, as long as performance doesn’t matter it’s better to default to B-Tree maps than to hash maps, because the chance of avoiding bugs is more valuable than immeasurable performance benefits (...)
I don't quite follow. What leads you to believe that a B-Tree map implementation would have a lower chance of having a bug when you can simply pick any standard and readily available hash map implementation?
Also, you fail to provide any concrete reasoning for b-tree maps. It's not performance on any of the dictionary operationd, and bugs ain't it as well. What's the selling point that you are seeing?
the reason I tend to recommend B-Tree maps over hash maps for ordinary programming is consistent iteration order.
Hash maps tend to be used to take advantage of constant time lookup and insertion, not iterations. Hash maps aren't really suites for that usecase.
Programming languages tend to provide two standard dictionary containers: a hash map implementation suited for lookups and insertions, and a tree-based hash map that supports sorting elements by key.
I don't think so. If anything, CDK contributes to not only simplify deployments of complex web applications but it also makes said deployments testable and verifiable. Also, features such as constructs and basic modularization contribute to simplify and clarify any deployment. I don't know of any IaC tool that handles this better than CDK, frankly.