If you don’t use the parameter functionality of prepared statements, yeah. That also means you don’t use a prepared statement, you construct varying sql strings and prepare varying “prepared” statements.

5 with reasonable acceptance and use, even advocacy, for up to 1. I don’t see a difference between 4 and 5, though.

Reviews should be the norm. Even for simple changes, a simple code change should be simple to review and approve, too. At the same time, some formatting changes or small or minimal changes with high confidence can be pushed to main without review - that’d be just wasted time and effort on the reviewer’s side. High urgency can also warrant an immediate push to main, or live hotfixing on prod if possible, with a corresponding PR still open.

I’m a bit confused by them publishing their personal essays on their htmx project page. This essay certainly doesn’t have anything to do with htmx directly. Either way, valuable content and possibly their strategy to get people to htmx, or reuse a domain and website they already have.

abstracting away determinism /s

The article doesn’t even mention this critical risk and history. Huge gap.

Think about whether TODOs will be revisited, and how you can guarantee that. What do you gain and lose by replacing warnings with TODOs.

In my projects and work projects, I advocate for:

• Warnings and TODOs are fine only in initial development before release/stability and in feature branches during development
• TODOs are almost never revisited, so document state and information instead of hypotheticals; document opportunities over TODOs, document known shortcomings and risks, etc
• If there is good reason to keep and ignore warnings, document the reasoning, and we can update our CI/Jenkins quality gate to a new baseline of accepted warnings instead of suppressing them (this pretty much never happens)

Dotnet warning suppression attributes have a Justification property. Editorconfig severity, disabling, suppression can have a comment.

If it’s your own project and you know when and how you will revisit, what do you gain by dropping the warning? A no-warning, but then you have TODOs with the same uncertainties?

We onboarded our team with VS integrated Copilot.

I regularly use inline suggestions. I sometimes use the suggestions that go beyond what VS suggested before Copilot license… I am regularly annoyed at the suggestions moving off code, even greyed out sometimes being ambiguous with grey text like comma and semicolon, and control conflicting with basic cursor navigation (CTRL+Right arrow)

I am very selective about where I use Copilot. Even for simple systematic changes, I often prefer my own editing, quick actions, or multi cursor, because they are deterministic and don’t require a focused review that takes the same amount of time but with worse mental effect.

Probably more than my IDE “AI”, I use AI search to get information. I have the knowledge to assess results, and know when to check sources anyway, in addition, or instead.

My biggest issue with our AI is in the code some of my colleagues produce and give me for review, and that I don’t/can’t know how much they themselves thought about the issues and solution at hand. A lack of description, or worse, AI generated summaries, are an issue in relation to that.

/edit: Here is my comment on the post four months ago.

And it’s so popular! It must be good!

This doesn’t seem programming-related. Am I missing something?

When I was researching keyboards recently, I stumbled over a pro gamer (I believe) YouTuber who was quite vocal about pretty much all gear marketed as “gaming gear” is overpriced marketing bullshit. Apparently, they tested dozens of keyboards, mice, and headsets over the years. It certainly matched my impression of reading tests about products previously.

“Gamer” chairs are racecar chairs meant to keep you from sliding sideways, not being fit for long sitting sessions on a PC. Prefer a good or decent office chair. “Gamer” headsets are worse and more expensive than other headsets. Keyboards and mice are mostly marketing. etc.

Regarding input, they made a point about physical human limitations and state like sleep and caffeine intake having much more of an effect than the hardware you use.

2022 update

So this article is quite old. There are keyboard switches now that activate as soon as you activate the key, and that can recognize lift and press without passing a trigger point. If you want that kind of edge, those are the top performers right now. I’d be more interested in the technology and maybe playful capabilities than the performance they add.

I’m always way too thorough when researching products before buying…

I thought I remembered a standardized metadata file format you can place on your website, but I can’t find it.

GitHub defines FUNDING

Brave webbrowser attempted something like that with Brave Rewards, but through ads, and basically collected for themselves until the websites actually signed up for Brave Rewards.

I remember Flattr.

“Yeah, I can do that task. I’m very experienced in struggling to implement stuff like that.”

Thanks for the suggestion. As a first step, I set it up in Nushell with a ctrl+t shortcut:

$env.config.keybindings = (
    $env.config.keybindings | append {
        name: fzf_file_picker
        modifier: control
        keycode: char_t
        mode: [emacs, vi_insert, vi_normal]
        event: {
            send: ExecuteHostCommand
            cmd: "commandline edit --insert (fzf | str trim)"
        }
    }
)

Maybe I will look into more. :) I’ve known about fzf but I guess never gotten around to fully evaluating and integrating it.

Nushell supports fuzzy completions, globbing, and “menus” (TUI) natively. Still, the TUI aspect and possibly other forms of integrations seem like they could be worthwhile or useful as extensions.

For software to be perfect, can not be improved no matter what, you’d have to define a very specific and narrow scope and evaluate against that.

Environments change, text and data encoding and content changes, forms and protocol of input and output changes, opportunities and wishes to integrate or extend change.

pwd seems simple enough. cd I would already say no, with opportunities to remember folders, support globbing, fuzzy matching, history, virtual filesystems. Many of those depend on the environment you’re in. Typically, shells handle globbing. There’s alternative cd tools that do fuzzy matching and history, and virtual filesystems are usually abstracted away. But things change. And I would certainly like an interactive and fuzzy cd.

Now, if you define it’s scope, you can say: “All that other stuff is out of scope. It’s perfect within it’s defined target scope.” But I don’t know if that’s what you’re looking for? It certainly doesn’t mean it can’t be improved no matter what.

The original one? Because there’s numerous extensions to it. I wouldn’t be confident it won’t evolve further.

Do you exclude inventory management from that “will never change” so that that’s only about software?

I imagine there will be new products to be listed.

…that supports Unicode? Which encodings? Or only ASCII? Unicode continues to change.

I wouldn’t be very confident that it won’t change or offer reasonable opportunities for improvement.

Your sentence abruptly ends in a backtick - did you mean to include something more? Maybe “wc”?

!gamedev@programming.dev

I’m surprised it wasn’t reallyblue