goldenkek

walmart has a 2 day delivery program similar to prime for 40 dollars a year. they need to advertise better..no one knows (you didnt did you?)

blocking. blocking. blocking. blocking. rtfm

This is a false equivalence. As long as the progress is set correctly via messaging (queue) to an alternate UI thread, the time lost will be under a millsecond. The naive print loop you provide is obviously IO bound and print is a blocking IO call. Use an async print IO and youll have much better performance. Narf!!

Hah.

Newer means different. Older means different. Different CPU meet differently optimized code meet different cocoa framework. Narf!

Why overengineer something as simple as a blog?

Testers are like McDonalds cashiers. They will eventually assimilate with the self checkout. Now, they may be able to get a job servicing the soda machine if they count their blessings.

exact tests on implementation at the "db was updated properly" category are usually classified as integration tests. theres nothing wrong with those. but one shouldnt test specificity of internal method code for small units.

checking for an insert into the database in the most general fashion is okay. checking for the exact dynamic data?? you are basically copying your code.

A stub on the iterator interface would do it..but like I said..terrible use of testing

He means you test pure functions and mutations. You dont stub data sources that your implementations use to see if they were called. tests need to be about enforcement of correct interface exposure. not exact implementations. its one of the most facepalm types of useless testing that ive seen littered around Amazon's Seattle teams due to these Indian managers wanting to make sure the data sources called in every method actually got called and that there is 100% coverage. serves no purpose except to basically make two copies of the code..the test as a doppleganger of the actual code but using stubs.