You write a simple interpreter basicly. Instead of directly manipulating the data , you build an ast of how to manipulate the data then you execute it. It also allows for nifty optimizations later on.
No, I won't. Piping is a nice way to compose programs. I like that, just use shell check and proper settings.
I usually go to python or some other scripting language when I have a lot of string processing to do. For the rest something with a more advanced type system. Scala, rust and the like.
I don't mind them, but I would like if people keep it short. I work on feature X, I have this problem, I need help.
Or I work on feature X, I don't need help. It always devolves into whole blog posts.
Also when you are in a small team and communication is fast and efficient, they are superfluous. Team members already can ask for help and you know what everybody is doing.
Exactly. Around here we have daily standup via Teams even when we are all in the office. Sometimes it seems more an excersise on 'look at all the tools we got to our disposal!' than a functional communication. Plus the fact nobody has time/the mood/the mindset/the care to help with complex problems. You touched it, you're the owner, the solver and the guru for eternity for this particular thing. Oh well. It gives me plenty of time to drink coffee.
When I realised that everything following a couple of simple laws was a monad, I started to notice them alot and was also able to implement them.
The tutorials with pictures or analogies like containers only made me confused.
You can just kill the observer. Quantum immortality sort:
def qisort(list):
qshuffle(list)
if not sorted(list):
kill_observer()
Only in the universe in which th the list is sorted, the user will survive. There might be no such universe, but then the user is no longer waiting on the result.
I wrote "People like to use these as strawmen about look at all the nuts out there, we need to control what people can read"
The grammar was very poor. I meant the "look at all the nuts out there, we need to control what people can read" as the false conclusion that might be drawn by someone who believes conspiracy theories are rampant.
I think the people falling for conspiracy theories are thoroughly demoralized. They are so far in the rabbit hole that they cannot even acknowledge reality any longer. That won't be fixed by stopping people to read things. I think it will only add to the underlying mistrust and make it worse.
You need to find out why that happened and fix that.
"Reality" is so huge and so opaque, it often feels like there aren't any answers only more questions. We're hairless apes on a rock hurtling through endless space, reality is terrifying.
I imagine a lot of these people just want/need something to cling to , because even the conspiracy theory sometimes seems more real then reality.
Well, you name quite the case, but besides that. I think the fact that anonymous discussions derail easier and don't exactly get the best out of people, isn't relevant at all. I would even say, it is a price, we should be willing to pay.
First of all being anonymous is important if you want to call out far more powerful entities than you, which can lash out to you.
Second I think it is important to see, what the darker side of society thinks. Even if you remove them from the normal internet, they will still find a way to communicate, but now it is no longer out in the open. It is better to know then to not know.
