Saying "good attempt" is just a nice platitude. It doesn't actually mean that what you've done is good, especially if you follow it up with (effectively) "but you've got to do it all again". I think most people understand that.
Yeah I mean obviously the technical points here are correct (and I wish my colleagues would write more robust code with less Bash and regex all over the place), but I don't know why he thinks you need an asshole manager to deliver that message.
Over-engineered. Too many moving parts. Refactor.”
That was it. No “nice work.” No “good attempt”. Just a hard stop.
Uhm yeah, would writing "good attempt" have hurt? Obviously not. He could easily have been nice and still deliver the technical information.
Good attempt, but I think this is too over-engineered with too many moving parts. For instance x y z would be simpler to maintain, and a b c isn't robust to 1 2 3 for example.
Technically they do via a footnote... but it's a pretty confusing one at that!
The FLS stood for the "Ferrocene Language Specification". The minimal fork of Rust that Ferrous Systems qualifies and ships to their customers is called "Ferrocene", hence the name. We'll be dropping the expansion and just calling it the FLS within the Project.
Ha no. SQLite can easily handle tens of GB of data. It's not even going to notice a few thousand text files.
The initial import process can be sped up using transactions but as it's a one-time thing and you have such a small dataset it probably doesn't matter.
They're being tactful. It's clearly a reference to Waiting for Godot. They even said so.
The name "Godot" was chosen in reference to Samuel Beckett's play Waiting for Godot, as it represents the never-ending wish of adding new features in the engine, which would get it closer to an exhaustive product, but never will.
Ok so if I'm understanding correctly Hyperlight lets you sandbox components of your embedded system using hypervisor/VMs. Hyperlight WASM is an alternative sandbox that uses WASM for sandboxing instead.
I guess if you only have WASM there would not be much need for Hyperlight at all, but if you have a mix of WASM and non-WASM code this would be useful.
I don't agree with everything Israel does but you have to consider the environment they're in. They may be aggressive and racist but they're not terrorists.
Honestly I think the complaints about the job market are overblown. If you are good then there will always be a job for you somewhere.
If you've already tried programming and you enjoy it then it is a really great career. Crazy money (especially in the US) for low effort and low responsibility.
Just be aware that CS is usually a lot more theoretical than most programming. You'll be learning about things like Hoare logic and category theory. Tons of stuff you only really need in the real world if you're doing formal verification or compiler design.
Still, I kind of wish I did have that theoretical background now I am doing formal verification and compiler design! (I did a mechanical engineering degree.)
Also you don't need a CS degree to get a programming job. I did a survey of colleagues once to see what degree they had and while CS was the most common, fewer than half had one. Most had some kind of technical degree (maths, physics, etc.), but some had done humanities and one guy (who was very good!) didn't have a degree at all.
I wouldn't worry about the market. Maybe take a look at the syllabus for places you might apply to, e.g. here's the one for Cambridge. Also I guess an important question is what's the alternative? What would you do otherwise?
mainly because of rails magic though whenever I look at it. Convention over configuration hurts my brain some days.
I agree. Ruby has waaaay too much magic which makes it impossible to follow (dynamic typing makes it even worse).
And convention over configuration definitely has huge advantages in terms of consistency and terseness, but it is also way less discoverable because instead of a config file say "the stuff is in foo" you have to already know that everything in foo is automatically treated as stuff.
I often wonder if it would be crazy to have both: you have a configuration file that says where things go, but the values must be set to constant well-known values. Sounds kind of crazy so I've never done it but you would get consistency and discoverability. I expect people would complain about the redundancy though.
I've definitely seen "this is more correct, but all the other code does it like this so can you change it?"
I can't say I entirely disagree with it either - usually the "more correct" is not "the existing code doesn't work at all", and keeping it consistent makes it easier to fix all of the code later, because you're only fixing one style instead of two (or more).
So... to store encrypted data that only the user can decrypt you don't need any fancy zero knowledge algorithms. Just have the user keep the encryption key.
For authentication you could use one of these algorithms. OPAQUE seems to be popular. I'm not an expert but it seems like it has several neat zero-knowledge style properties.
But probably forget about implementing it without a strong background in cryptography.
You need them in CI anyway to check people have actually done that, but yeah you definitely don't need to have CI automatically fix formatting and commit the fixes. That's crazy.
WPRS uses the term rootless like this. I didn't come up with it. But I agree it is not a great term. If you can think of a better one I will happily use it. Parallels calls it "coherence mode", which also isn't great.
Actually Xprs uses "seamless mode" which is probably better.
Uhm what?