gouggoug

true — they only are immutable by convention and because the git command refuses by default to modify/push an existing tag.

One step further: use `git tag` for what it's for: tagging a given commit with an immutable reference (say, a version number like `v1.0.23`), and generate and publish "build artifacts" (`my-application-v1.0.23.tar.gz`, `my-application-v1.0.23` binary, `my-application-v1.0.23.tar.gz` helm chart, `my-application-v1.0.23` container image, `my-application-v1.0.23` ... whatever binary artifact)

> Nearly half of this year's survey respondents had experienced job insecurity and insufficient wages.

Insufficient wages, really? I understand you might be underpaid compared to your peers, but do developer really suffer from "insufficient wages"?

edit: I assumed this was US centric. It isn't. I could see insufficient wages outside the US.

A good reminder that satire really is an art.

I came here for this comment.

"A file format that corrupts itself a little every time you open it" simply isn't possible.

It's almost like the author is ragebaiting with this AI generated non-sense.

Because most users aren’t computer savvy and victims in a hurry probably don’t have time for a lesson.

On top of that, informing users requires them to open up the website in the first place… leaving it in… the history.

From the linked article, it was a press release, not just to his employees.

> The incident began Monday when ATI, which supplies graphics cards for all Apple's current models, issued a four-paragraph news release that stated its Radeon processor would be featured in three new Mac models -- none of which were announced by Apple (Nasdaq: AAPL) until CEO Steve Jobs' Wednesday morning keynote address.

I recently got into 3D printing and, of course, after seeing countless ads on YouTube for OnShape, that was my first choice.

Anyone having used both can share their thoughts about how solvespace and OnShape compare?

On my end I’ve been loving OnShape and find it pretty intuitive. I also tried fusion360 but closed it after 5 minutes, it felt too sluggish.

Let my geriatric self rephrase this for you and make the point more obvious: "[...] who just discovered [insert latest design pattern trend of your choice] and insists on trying it everywhere"

> Is that an easy mistake to make and a hard one to recover from, in your experience?

If you're alone in a codebase? Probably not.

In a company with many contributors of varying degrees of competence (from your new grad to your incompetent senior staff), yes.

In large repositories, without extremely diligent reviewers, it's impossible to prevent developers from creating the most convoluted anti-patterny spaghetti code, that will get copy/pasted ad nauseam across your codebase.

Terraform as a tool and HCL as a programming language leave a lot to be desire (in hindsight only, because, let's be honest, it's been a boon for automation), but their constrained nature makes it easier to reign in the zealous junior developer who just discovered OOP and insists on trying it everywhere...

Not an opinion on Pulumi specifically, but an opinion on using imperative programming languages for infrastructure configuration: don't do it. (This includes using things like CDKTF)

Infrastructure needs to be consistent, intuitive and reproducible. Imperative languages are too unconstrained. Particularly, they allow you to write code whose output is unpredictable (for example, it'd be easy to write code that creates a resources based on the current time of day...).

With infrastructure, you want predictability and reproducibility. You want to focus more on writing _what_ your infra should look like, less _how_ to get there.

I wish timoni[1] would take off.

It’s based on Cue and doesn’t rely on templating.

[1] timoni.sh

There’s a difference between passively listening to a meeting and actively participating, while being in the bathroom.

I would never do either. But one is less weird than the other.

I wonder who the target is for such language.

What's difficult with programming isn't the language itself, it's everything else: understanding concepts, algorithms, programming patterns, the science.

It feels a bit like trying to reinvent the language of mathematics. It'd be really inefficient writing math in plain English.

This past month, I have spent a decent amount of hours (7+) trying to setup nix on my mac with nix-darwin, and failed.

Most tutorial out there encourage you to download someone else's configuration to get going. I don't want to do that. I want to understand at its core how this thing works.

I've read the official nix language documentation, watched YouTube tutorials, read 3rd party tutorials, and still couldn't get going with a simple configuration that would install a few packages.

The nix language is also really unpalatable to me. But I could deal with that if the examples out there showed a consistent way of doing things – that's not the case. It seems one same thing can be done many different ways – but I want to know and do it the right way. I would generally turn myself to the official best practices documentation, except nix' is very short and doesn't help much.

I really want to use nix. There's no question about its advantages. But nix just won't let me (or maybe I'm too old to learn new things).

That being said, I'll probably give it another try this month...