mrozbarry

I think Bob Martin would generally agree. I think his gripe was using comments to make your code more readable, and that's a problem. Variable and function naming should make the code logic clear and readable. When it comes to feature requirements/explanation, that's a different thing, and a hard problem. Documenting features in code means it's only available to coders. Duplicating feature documentation from some external source to code means it risks becoming out-dated.

Syncing tickets, bug fixes, code, and feature details is a hard problem. I'd generally prefer doc-block style comments that link to feature/product documentation, which is good for humans, and probably LLMs, too. Wherever you put it, keep it consistent and searchable.

The keyboard arrows to move works nice, but pressing enter to place appears to cancel it. I'm on firefox 145/mac os 15.6.1 if that matters.

I'm going to comment with the preface that I gave up reading the article. It feels like a word-salad, and I'm getting lost trying to find the point a lot of the time.

Christianity is Jesus Christ substitutes the sin of a faithful man or woman with His righteousness.

You cannot buy faithfulness, and you cannot obtain righteousness through good works on your own.

The target has never been against wealth, but the love of money, or trusting in the things of this lifetime. For instance, Proverbs 11:28 says not to trust in wealth. Mark 8:36, Jesus states that if you seek wealth over everything else, what good is it when you die? In 1 Timothy 6:17-19, Paul encourages Timothy in his leadership to instruct wealthy people to not put their hope in their wealthy, but to do good with what God has given them.

On the installation page:

> As a Web Awesome backer, this early alpha release is just for you. Please refrain from sharing it for the time being!

I wonder if you could just have some sort of looping animation showing a vs code window, with live typing, and a view beside it of the turbogist ui.

I came here to say just this. When the word "turbo" and phrase "zero distractions" are present, but the demo is a number of minutes long, it feels like something is wrong.

It sounds like as a tech lead, if you're in charge of some degree of scheduling, and you have other tech people that you barely interact with, maybe you could start some sort of weekly or bi-weekly "meeting of the minds," and have a place to bounce ideas around. Even if your work isn't closely related, I bet they also feel a bit of isolation, too. It's likely in your work's best interest to have some common/shared knowledge for a small tech team in case of some sort of tech emergency.

I didn't write it like that because it obscures the call order. I wasn't trying to compare code line/count, just flow control and readability, which is certainly subjective.

I prefer the raw promise syntax. It makes the promise chain look more like what it is, an asynchronous pipeline, and you don't need to litter async everywhere.

    const myAsyncThing = async (init) => {
      let value = await task1(init);
      value = await task2(value);
      return value;
    }

    const myPromiseThing = (init) => task1(init).then(task2)

I know this is a relatively simple and contrived example, but there are some times where async/await very much is bulky and gets in the way of just writing code.

My biggest gripe with async await is when it's used by people that don't understand promises. They interpret await as "let promise run" and not "this blocks the flow." I had someone show me code where they wanted to preload a bunch of images, and effectively had a for loop and did an await on each image in it, effectively running it as slow as possible. I showed him `await Promise.all(imageLoadingPromises)`, and he was confused why we needed `Promise.all` here.

I also don't like how async/await ends up taking over a whole codebase. Often making one function async will cause you to update other functions to be async so you can do proper awaiting. We literally exchanged callback hell to async hell, and said it was better, but I'm not strictly convinced of this.

I think this issue is actually two issues

    1. A terminal shouldn't be able to ask some resource on the internet what to type and auto-execute it.
    2. AI fear/fatigue/???

I think point 1 is reasonable to an extent, but it should be taken in context. iTerm2 is a free app, and as far as I can tell, not even remotely required on any mac platform, since there is technically a default dumb terminal, which can be customized. I think the context issue is from the video demos I've seen, nothing directly types into your terminal, it's up to the user to review/copy/paste the generated code snippet. The underlying tech has been in iTerm for a while, from the best I can see. Auto-fill also enables things like the 1password integration, and anyone can open a chatgpt client and copy/paste shell code from there in the same way the iTerm2 integration works.

I understand point 2, I have never cared for any AI hype, it has near-zero interest for me, and doesn't affect my work. Almost every editor has some capacity to ask the internet for data and paste it in, from AI or otherwise, and no one is really sounding a major alarm bell around that. You could argue there is a big push for these integrations to train models, but even that requires a key.

I would argue that the average person would lie to preserve their life. Not all, of course, that's a pretty wide stroke to paint many people with.

The resurrection of Jesus Christ is a dividing point to all humanity, and there are many willing to die on either side of the fence. While it has been contested many times, there is no definitive proof that Jesus was not resurrected, and there is pretty solid evidence that Jesus did die on the cross (as opposed to old age or some other natural cause). We also know that the Jewish leaders at the time of Jesus were furious at Christianity, and had a serious campaign to destroy and discredit it, yet it survived. You'd think that with their financial and people resources, they could have recovered a body or exposed Jesus as a fraud.

The single most significant fact supported by the Bible is the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. History agrees that Jesus was a real man. History agrees that He was significant in the region. The eye witness testimonies support (but don't prove) the resurrection, but consider this - many men and women were executed in the first century because they would not recant that they were eye witnesses to Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection. If it were a lie, why would so many take that to the point of their own death?