Posts by sabroni 4141 publicly visible posts • joined 11 May 2007
The alternative is 10 years of cruft in a single monolithic service that encapsulates all 1,600 mico-services into one. All the same code but without being forced to create discreet interfaces or separate concerns properly. The monolith would be in a worse state after 10 years.
Firstly nearly all the security problems I read about, on the web or otherwise, are related to buffer overflows from C or C++ developers so where you get the idea that JS is the source of all the insecurity I don't know.
Secondly all the criticisms you're making about bad developement practice are language agnostic. There are bad developers working in C just like any other language. Competent JS/TS development uses CI with linting tools, unit tests, integration tests, staged environments and more. Those tools prove that what's delivered does what it's supposed to.
A real developer doesn't claim that other developers aren't "proper" because of the language they work in. Real developers know that what's important is patterns and working practices, not clinging to the past and bemoaning change.
If your code isn't readable then it's your fault not the languages. A good developer codes in a way that explains to other humans what the code is supposed to do. The computer needs to understand it too but if the humans can't understand it then it can't be modified or maintained.
It's great that Pascal encourages this kind of coding but whatever language you write in you should make readability a prime concern.
Firstly, are you new here love? You can type "fuck", no one's going to be frightened (or impressed).
"Cocktail casual" is non-gender specific and means evening wear. That doesn't mean short or sexy, it just means smart and stylish and is gender neutral. That's why it was suggested as an alternative to saying "short skirts".
Try and keep up sugar!
The hero engineer delivered the cantilever over spec and under cost. Unfortunately they also improved the design in a way that meant using it broke all the shimming pins. The pins weren't the hero engineers remit.
That's why they're a problem. They're not part of the team so they disrupt more than they contribute. They deliver stuff that looks good on the surface so management overlook the problems they cause. The team can't iterate and improve because they don't control the domain they work in, there's always random external contributions coming in that they are unprepared for.
That's why the superhero pattern is an anti-pattern.
Firstly, as mentioned above, the definition of superhero used in this study just captured the core team. Having a core team isn't inherently a problem.
The second problem is that this is a study of open source development. When people are being paid to develop there is a completely different dynamic to a project where contributors choose to contribute.
The superhero pattern is a problem in a work environment where a group of developers are trying to work as a team and one team member, often cto or "lead developer", doesn't work with the team and instead pushes their work on to the team as the team are trying to focus on their own work.
This behaviour often plays out to the hero's advantage. A team nearly completes a feature, the hero pushes a super new widget that performs ten times faster but breaks the teams feature. The customer sees a performance improvement from the hero and a failed delivery from the team. Bad managers facilitate this behaviour by not calling out the hero for breaking the feature.
By all means be a hero on your hobby projects. When you come to work on a team then you need to focus primarily on working in a team, all your clever code means nothing if you're just screwng up every body else's work.
That's not what the article says. It says we must extradite if the Americans provide a warrant but that we have to present a case to get Americans extradited here. We must comply with a warrant, they may comply with a case. Must and may do not mean the same thing.
It's not just how many occurrences, the severity of the problem is also relevant. 21 complaints a year of the windows making a whining noise? Fine. 21 complaints a year of a car deciding to randomly accelerate? Not fine, sort it out before someone ends up hurt.
Unsurprisingly patronising and presumptuous of others knowledge. My superficial interactions have paid the bills for thirty years and have never caused the gnashing of teeth and railling against the system that seems a requirement of working with Linux.
And after i went out of my way to be polite too!
Are you saying that computers behave unpredictably when running JavaScript? Or that it is impossible to test JavaScript? Or just that you don't work with it, don't understand it and are therefore frightened of it? It sounds like you think nodejs runs in the browser....
Your last point could be extended to read "http is the primary vector for almost all online host compromises". Should we get rid of that too?
People on tech sites who parade their ignorance of something like it's a badge of honour do my head in. Much like the Linux heads who can't bring themselves to consider that an engineer who works for ms could have a good idea or write elegant code.
I agree npm is a security nightmare. The problem is having to trust other people's code not the language that code is in. If your language can do useful stuff then it can be made to do malicious stuff.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
