A-M-A-Z-I-N-G

Too many of these weirdos giving talks on this channel. Think it's time to just block it.

Psychology is a sudo-science. Intelligence is a self-applied, self-defined term that is not verifiable.

That’s what a polished and well rehearsed presentation looks like, kids. Bravo!

So Microsoft learned from Unixes daemons idea that was working before Steve Balmer? That you can turn a console app into "windows service" without rewriting it as "windows service".

Tremendous amount of value delivered here through this template

The URL @4:45 doesn't work. Ironically, this defect would have been caught had the presentation been better reviewed beforehand.

I agree with Tess that the heated argument in a PR is an indication of a broken development process. In our case, having an architecture/design session before the implementation solved majority of hard issues.

afaik CD is constant linear speed, slowing down angular speed when reading outer rings

So how to implement that non-blocking in c#? I did not get any answer that I can apply. Grr!

For operator precedence, i suggest we take C++'s and shuffle it. Also make everything right-associative. because we hate people.

38:31 accout.Save(); has an input: an object of type account.

Imo, it's not so much about some patricular piece of the system (i.e. Napster for Music or Opensource for Software) as it's about the system in it's entirety. Exploitation exists not because it's "allowed" for or "enabled" by previous bad decissions, but because it is necessary, so if you want it to stop you need to think not on how you can stop an instance of it, but on how you make it NOT necessary. Trying to fight every particular issue separately just won't lead anywhere, because even if you succeed, while you get busy patching one hole, 3 more appear. I mean, "changing licensing", "introducing billing to package managers" - depending on the implementation, seems like you can just go straight the other direction with all that . Giving middleman power to those platforms, however benevolent they may be now, can make them just as bad as any "app-store" in the future. That being said, you are right in that something needs to change, it's just that there's a devil or two to get flashed out before I'd be comfortable fully accepting your approach (not that my acceptance really changes anything)

Interesting, thank you!

Painful to watch even at 2x, the presenter butchered an interesting and important topic.

The more I listen to this video, the more it gets under my skin. "We don't necessarily want to get feedback". Well that's why there is such a thing as workflows enforcing code reviews. Some (actually all) developers make mistakes, and many of these mistakes have real consequences. Every time my mail address is leaked by a company that does not ensure sufficient security standards, I am upset, because I have to cope with even more spam. I am more upset when my credit card info gets leaked. As a customer, I really don't care about the feelings of a developer that didn't care about the quality of their code that leaked my credit card. I don't care for a team member that makes "my code" break in such ways. I want an additional pair of eyes look over that code and if they see something bad, I want these eyes make a report to the brain and then I want a mouth to speak up. Then I want ears to listen and hands to hack corrections into that code. What is all this being nice and politically correct stuff about, when the topic is how to write good or at least good enough code, such that people don't die when they get medical treatment or get robbed when they pay online? What kind of ethics is this?

"How can we do [reviews] better, how can we not argue [..] and still stay friends" - Simple, just don't do reviews. Everybody with access to the code can review it on their own terms. They can nicely talk about things they like and ignore bugs they see. Or they can just be nice to each other and ignore the code nobody seems to care about alltogether. To me, these reviews look like a waste of time.

If and whenever I have to accept a change to "my" code that I perceive as defective, it's no longer my code. I don't commit defects into my code, not unless I mark them with FIXIT. For me, the term "ownership" either means literally that it's mine and I have the last say how that is changed, or it means that I am dedicated to it and then I really don't want it to be made defective. What kind of respect is it, when my view is catered to because I am a member of some group and not because it's right? That only means that my view is irrelevant. If it's wrong, than being irrelevant is a good thing. If my view is right, I want it to matter, because otherwise, I get no respect, it's the team that owns the respect, not me or the intrinsic value of my views. If I want to feel good, I go out with my friends. When I'm developing software, I want to see an excellent result, that's my work ethics. In that context, I don't care for the feeling of my team mates. If it's a good team and I'm a good team member, they are friends anyway and we're producing good code, not mutally owned defects. If I ever start thinking of a mutual defect as an accomplishment, I'll stop writing software and start growing tomatoes in a green house. If you need code reviews to keep external audiences up to date, then you do something wrong in your documentation or communication. That is not and should not be the purpose of code reviews. A code review should review THE CODE. Why would you do that if not to SEE if it's ok?

does anyone have this example project somewhere on Github?

If finding defects is not a main objective but sharing patterns is, then what you end up doing is sharing defects, isn't it? I find it horrible that arguing has a negative connotation. Arguing is the process of exachanging arguments. If that becomes an unpleasant experience, the only reason I can think of for that is that the arguments do not serve the right purpose. If both parties have the same objective, exchanging arguments support that purpose and both parties should enjoy that. The fact that most often one side was right is a downside of arguing, but that can't really be helped. Then again, both sides have opportunities to learn, no matter who wins, transforming arguments into win-win activities. This goes wrongwhen both parties do not have the same objective. That creates a new objective which would be to examine respective goals and redefine them accordingly. The problem is not that there is an argument, the problem is that it's the wrong argument. The reason why reality does not align with my description is that most people are not interested in shared goals, they follow their personal agenda for personal gains. Sad as it is, drawing the conclusion "let's not argue" is probably the most stupid strategy to handle this problem, as it just accepts hostility as a natural modus operandi and not as something that has to be worked on.

The more talks and presentations i listen to, the more often i hear something along the lines of "you are doing topic X wrong, because you don't understand it well enough or have completely misunderstood it". Which is a really weird state that the world of software development is in. A field of work where being clear, precise and having a good understanding about your work is mandatory. On the other hand it's a comparatively young field of work and we don't have houndreds of years of softwaredev we can look back upon. 😅 A new junior software dev recently asked me what is expected for a dev to do in a code review and i couldn't give him an answer i was happy with (not a dev myself). This talk definitely helped me get a better understanding about what code reviews should be about. Thanks!

Shared ownership where everyone shares ownership does not work because no one can be responsible for everything.

Sure I'll wqtch the 2nd version of this

Wow, this was incredibly thought-provoking and packed full of ideas, thankyou.

We should be moving to lower entropy technologies, the tech stacks should get thinner not bulkier as we discover a correct simple way to do things.

Looks like a legacy php everything before Astro😅 and then web elements came. What is the reason of using client:load, why it can't just load?

"I apologize for utilizing the `master` branch; we have certain `daemons` in place. These seemingly trivial issues can complicate matters, but it's important to note that they won't alter the past or impact the future significantly.

at 7:22 the code is as Fowler says, a thin DB wrapper (class or script). But as you pull data belonging to different Entity classes (if you're using an ORM) and then put them into objects etc, can we say It is object oriented OR is the data simply being stuffed into objects to iterate over and do your business logic so it's merely data oriented?

😂 the more things change the more they change the same... We went from running code on the server to running on the client and I see we back running code on the server.

Incredible talk, the snippets prepared beforehand makes it flow very smoothly. The WASI part is what I'm hyped for. A polyglot jupyter notebook comes to mind

damn, all of that to render a couple of div tags sheeeeeit

Great talk, All claims are substantiated by evidence, which is rare in all the internet talk about ML bots called "AI". This talk is science, not opinion. I learned a lot.

Go go team witters

Some demonstration which are worth watching.

bro still uses ICQ!?!? wow - cool

Nice sneak peek into the software I use everyday

Very good talk!

I just love listening to Mads while learning more about the language!

Great comparison - I am torn beteween proto.actor and Orleans.... either way I'm sure I'll be in good hands!

for anyone wondering: I am 99% certain the slide at 49:47 is FizzBuzz in Regex (or a fizzbuzz validator probably)

I've been saying "How can you choose not to follow a plan if you don't have one in the first place" for about a year now... Rewatching this today, it's good to see where I stole that quote from. :)

This is a useful presentation I ever seen, only 1 hours spend for me to cover all the knowledge compare to three months I spend on college

No thanks to having all my keys at a cloud vendor! You are not creating that often new web accounts, so the synchronisation aspect is not necessary. People should think twice when putting their whole life into one vendor basket only due to lazyness.

Man said this is not my thing from the begging but gave it all to do what he is there to do ! Thank you Sir and I dont think you are the oldest there .

Good demo, thanks.

Awesome talk overall and a fantastic short walkthrough of the web development history at the beginning. Steve's presentation was so good taht it's been featured in the latest issue of Tech Talks Weekly newsletter! 🎉 Congrats!

HTMX Bro!

The suggestion to start from a monolith app first is probably the most ridiculous one, that I've heard for recent years! Every system architecture has its own specifics, which makes any transition to another architecture a really non-trivial task, or it's not possible at all. What is OK for one architecture (say, tight coupling in monolith), stays against the rules in the other (micro-services must be loosely-coupled). We cannot just gradually transform our monolith to the completely different micro-services architecture! Hence, we have three options here: 1) Start with micro-services from the beginning. 2) Write 2nd version of our software solution from scratch. 3) Stay with monolith, as it's not "evil" like it's now popular to state! "Evil" sources from lack of competence! The same guys, that created "bad" monolith before, would make awful "distributed monolith" instead of normal micro-services!

oh no...another new thing...stop with all these short-lived frameworks that are all the same anyway. The big tech companies and especially Microsoft must sweep through all those hobbyists who come up with a new framework or tool every year that add nothing at all.

Fantastic talk. Quick note that "python's pre-commit" is just a tool written in python. It will run any linter or formatter you give it for any language, it just calls out to other executables. I've used it for things like `gofmt`, `clang-format`, etc