Skimmed comments, but if you download and manage your music on your own on a machine you can have a super simple setup like I do. All music is synced using Syncthing to my phone. So my phone gets local storage, and then I use Poweramp (android) to play it.

I pretty much have a folder for all the music though. But I assume you can sort music into folders to have them as playlists. But perhaps not as practical as desired.

What’s fun is determining which function in that list of functions actually is the one where the bug happens and where. I don’t know about other langauges, but it’s quite inconvenient to debug one-linres since they are tougher to step through. Not hard, but certainly more bothersome.

I’m also not a huge fan of un-named functions so their functionality/conditions aren’t clear from the naming, it’s largely okay here since the conditional list is fairly simple and it uses only AND comparisons. They quickly become mentally troublesome when you have OR mixed in along with the changing booleans depending on which condition in the list you are looking at.

At the end of the day though, unit tests should make sure the right driver is returned for the right conditions. That way, you know it works, and the solution is resistant to refactor mishaps.

But nothing is forcing you to check exeptions in most languages, right?

While not checking for exceptions and .unwrap() are pretty much the same, the first one is something you get by not doing anything extra while the latter is entirely a choice that has to be made. I think that is what makes the difference, and in similar ways why for example nullable enabled project in C# is desired over one that is not. You HAVE to check for null, or you can CHOOSE to assume it is not by trying to use the value directly. To me it makes a difference that we can accidentally forget about a possible exception or if we can choose to ignore it. Because problems dealt with early at compile time, are generally better than those that happen at runtime.

It can be pretty convenient to throw an error and be done with it. I think for some languages like Python, that is pretty much a prefered way to deal with things.

But the entire point of Rust and Result is as you say, to handle the places were things go wrong. To force you to make a choice of what should happen in the error path. It both forces you to see problems you may not be aware of, and handle issues in ways that may not stop the entire execution of your function. And after handling the Result in those cases, you know that beyond that point you are always in a good state. Like most things in Rust, that may involve making decisions about using Result and Option in your structs/functions, and designing your program in ways that force correct use… but that a now problem instead of a later problem when it comes up during runtime.

If Reddit back in the day had asked a few dollars for me to stick with using 3rd party apps using the API I would have. But they did the opposite, so here I am. First time actually donating to something, a measily $2 dollars a month, but hopefully a start to fund some of the free stuff I use.

I largely agree with this nodding along to many of the pitfalls presented. Except numbers 2s good refactor. I hope I won’t sound too harsh/picky for an example that perhaps skipped renaming for clarity on the other parts, but I wanted to mention it.

While I don’t use javascript and may be missing some of the norms and context of the lanugage, creating lamda functions (i don’t know the js term) and then hardcoding them into a function is barely an improvement. It’s fine because they work well with map and filter, but it didn’t address the vague naming. Renaming is refactoring too!

isAdult is a simple function with a clear name, but formatUser and processUsers are surprisingly vague. formatUser gives only adult FormattedUsers, and that should probably be highlighted in the name of formatUser now that it is a resuable function. To me, it seems ripe for mistaken use given that it is the filter that at a glance handles removing non-adult users before the formatting, while formatUser doesn’t appear to exepct only adult users from it’s naming or even use! Ideally, formatUser should have checked the age on it’s own and set isAdult true/false accordingly, instead of assuming it will be used only on adult Users.

Likewise, the main function is called processUsers but could easily have been something more descriptive like GetAdultFormattedUsers or something similar depending on naming standards in js and the context it is used in. It may make more sense in the actual context, but in the example a FormattedUser doesn’t have to be an adult, so a function processing users should clarify that it only actually creates adult formatted users since there is a case where a FormattedUser is not an adult.

He may have used the wrong word, but maintaining the same function signature across two files (while made easier by IDE tools) sucks ass to do. It was one of the major pain points for me doing a C++ course (along with the abyssmal compilation error messages). Not that I have tried Zig, but I do not see a reason to involve header files in my life if I can avoid it.

Late here, but if you want the easy route then there is always Unity (C#) if it fits for your use case in game dev and the license isn’t a problem for you.

The difference is, with a build pattern you are sure someone set the required field.

For example, actix-web you create a HttpResponse, but you don’t actually have that stuct until you finish the object by setting the body() or by using finish() to have an empty body. Before that point you have a builder.

There is noting enforcing you to set the input_directory now, before trying to use it. Depending on what you need, that is no problem. Likewise, you default the max_depth to a value before a user sets one, also fine in itself. But if the expectation is that the user should always provide their own values, then a .configre(max_depth, path) would make sense to finish of the builder.

It might not matter much here, but if what you need to set was more expensive struts, then defaulting to something might not be a good idea. Or you don’t need to have Option<PathBuf> and check every time you use it, since you know a user provided it. But that is only if it is required.

Lastly, builder make a lot of sense when there is a lot to provide, which would make creating a strict in a single function/line very complicated.

Example in non-rust: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/328496/when-would-you-use-the-builder-pattern

It’s a link to an image on github not sure why it doesn’t work for you. Try just looking at the repo then:

https://github.com/Thomasedv/Grabber

(Windows only warning, unless someone wants to add Linux support)

I didn’t really search around for GUIs way back, but ended up making a basic GUI because I wanted to learn programming.

https://camo.githubusercontent.com/5ecb6cdfb3710e359894b65e42b79c7ab7dd8de55a14cdf34f0f0f37d48c7d04/68747470733a2f2f692e696d6775722e636f6d2f346a46776846652e706e67

With just having options as checkboxes for YouTube-dl. It has served me well all these years. It was literally the thing I made while learning programming so the code is pretty janky when I look back at it though…

It’s hyperbole, but I learned my first language because I wanted to be a god.

I saw these magic windows that popped up, that had buttons, and I was jealous of these godly creators holding the power to make them do as they wanted. So, I learned it myself. I peeked at another program I was using, it was using python and PyQt so that’s what I set out with to become my own god of the desktop.

My first program was a GUI wrapper around the YouTube-dl CLI, and I still use it frequently.

Buldak is a bit too spicy for me to enjoy. But Nongshim Shin Ramyun is much better tasting, and highly recommend for those that like spicy noodles that aren’t pure fire.

I am very content with Riders “hide whitespace and newlines” diff option. Frankly after starting to use auto format on code, all old files that got messy in the diffs next time they were changed.

There’s some other nitpicks that some more aware diff could have but outside python few changes in whitespace matters, so seeing every new line is a waste and visual burden in any review for me.

I use phone every day at office so I don’t need to get the wallet out of my jacket when going to the canteen to buy lunch. It’s literally the reason I started using my phone to pay. Too many times I forgot my card…

A lot of external drives are just internal devices with another controller and casing around. I had a 4TB I used with my laptop, and tore apart the casing and just plugged it into my desktop when I built one. Unless you start hammering the external case around, the drive will be fine.

Why wait and hope for C++ to get where modern languages are now? I know there’s value in the shared experience in C++ that if adapted would make it stronger, but I can only see a development of C++ having to force a drop of a lot of outdated stuff to even get started on being more suitable.

But the language is just not comfortable to me. From large amounts of anything creating undefined behavior, the god awful header files which I hate with a passion, tough error messages and such. I also met a fun collision of C++ in Visual Studio and using it with CMake in CLion.

I’ve just started looking at rust for fun, and outside not understanding all the errors messages with the bounded stuff yet, figuring out what type of string I should use or pass, and the slow climb up the skill curve, it’s pretty nice. Installing stuff is as easy as copy pasting the name into the cargo file!

Rust is just the prospective replacement of C++ though, people act like the White house said that C++ should be replaced by rust now. But the just recommend it and other languages, C# will do for a lot of people that does not need the performance and detail that the aforementioned languages target. Python is targeting a whole different use, but often combined with the faster ones.

C++ will live a long time, and if the popularity dies down it will surely be very profitable to be a developer on the critical systems that use it many years from now. I just don’t think an evolution of C++ is going to bring what the world needs, particularly because of the large amount of existing memory related security vulnerabilities. If things were good as they are now, this recommendation would not be made to begin with.

I do think the idea is pretty neat, although it’s pretty close to returning structured data like json.

A slight disclaimer that these people are smarter than me, and know better about what we are talking about, so I may be wrong here on some assumptions. But I do get a bit of feeling they are trying to solve a trivial problem, at least in their use case. Ultimately there are only so many lecturers, and so many man lectures at a given time. The total data amount wouldn’t be so much, and you can easily group by and sort on client side to achieve the original table which is show on a per lecturer basis. A little redundancy is in my opinion preferred over a query that returns 3 tables that then needs additional complicated work. I also find arguments about overlapping names to not be something the database should be handling, it falls on the data owners/manager instead. Academia is a wild west at times, but either this table is presentation only or a link to lecturer or lecture. And in the latter case, you’ll already throw in the ids so they can be used in an URL to some other site.

While this can have significant less bandwidth, it also risks falling as soon as more data is introduced, as you’re putting the large join operations on the client when you can get free optimizations from the SQL engine you use. I know not having duplicate data could be a thing for something where I work, where essentially we have hourly breakdowns but fetch at least the entire day for a single set of parameters. So that means 24x data for a surprisingly high amount of columns. When we only need 2 of them on the hourly level! But in this case, the data doesn’t strictly need many joins as it has a lot of the information itself, along with there being too much data to join on the client side anyways for this to feel ideal. I feel you’ll increase the complexity a bit too much as well. A big advantage of sql is how easy it is to understand what you are getting.

Its somewhat of a solved problem, if the performance becomes a problem, since we can return nested data anyways. So we can already today technically return a row where the hour(I think, never tried a date before) and value columns have arrays instead of a single value. We just haven’t done it because it is not a big enough problem yet.

Completely agree with that, we have the same issue in C# where I work. Just waiting for the day I get to push and update to our shared code style (editorconfig) to force that.

I don’t disagree that this is hard to read, but I feel it’s worth mentioning python has a pretty acceptable style guide. The problem is, it’s far less common in python to bundle parameters into some holding object. So here you have massive function that has to accept a lot all at once. In use it’s probably not as bad looking however.

And at least, it actually explains all the damn parameters. It’s a lot nicer than seeing functions parameters you don’t understand, and all you have is the name. This is not limited to python either