The pre-existing game engine with a bigger world and couple of new mechanics, in other words.
Not that TotK, or that approach to sequels, is even bad: I just wish Nintendo did less furiously masturbatory self-back-patting about how revolutionary it supposedly is. It is what it is (an acceptable if underwhelming sequel IMO), and Nintendo is what Nintendo is - a bag of dicks.
Sure, that’s fine. I use interactive rebase for “cleaning” a lot. I’m just saying it doesn’t make a difference for diffing (as you can diff any commit against any other) and doing it as a matter of routine sounds like it could skip potentially useful history.
I mostly rebase but if a branch has things happen in a sequence that matters, I would merge it instead, for example.
Squashing seems like you’d potentially lose out on info and have a harder time isolating the changes you’re looking through. I guess it depends on how much has been changed and whether some of the commits along the branch were more important than others.
I also don’t think the reset is necessary, you should be able to diff the branch head against whatever you want.
That, or you’re met with “why on earth do you want to do that?”
To be fair, the XY problem is huge in anything coding related. Newbie wants to do X, has a vague and terribly wrong idea about how to do it (Y), then asks how to do Y instead. To give a “correct” answer to Y, assuming the question makes enough sense to have a correct answer, is less helpful than trying more or less tactfully to figure out what the actual goal was.
I think I misunderstood lemmyvore a bit, reading some criticism into the Lego metaphor that might not be there.
To me, “playing with bricks” is exactly how I want a lot of my coding to look. It means you can design and implement the bricks, connectors and overall architecture, and end up with something that makes sense. If running with the metaphor, that ain’t bad, in a world full of random bullshit cobbled together with broken bricks, chewing gum and exposed electrical wire.
If the whole set is wonky, or people start eating the bricks instead, I suppose there’s bigger worries.
(Definitely agree on “low code” being one of those worries, though - turns into “please, Jesus Christ, just let me write the actual code instead” remarkably often. I’m a BizTalk survivor and I’m not even sure that was the worst.
the “playing with legos” mental model
??
Technically NES but mostly N64. These days I just play everything on a PS5 controller. Pretty nice.
Yeah, no shit. I sort of assumed the question was about the actual concepts as they relate to actual programming, outside of their current idiot teacher’s course.
Ignore it (edit: obviously not for the purposes of the course, which someone helpfully jumped down my throat presuming). A lot of people somehow in charge of teaching coding couldn’t code their way out of a wet paper bag.
They are in a ton of languages in all kinds of different families for a reason: they are a logical and fairly consistent expression of two fairly consistently logical ways to deal with control flow in the specific case of a loop. Also there’s the switch-case case in C-style languages.
Now, there are legitimate arguments for avoiding tons of of exotic control flow shenanigans, but if someone doesn’t understand break/continue, then the problem is 100% theirs and nobody should take their advice on anything much, let alone relating to programming.
I knew that fucking roulette was a scam.
Relational database/RDBMS? It’s because the added complexity was necessary or desirable for some reason - relational databases are pretty good at managing data fairly quickly, often with features to deal with timing issues, concurrency, transactions, security, auditing, replication… They have theory going back decades and are still highly relevant. Same as any other software offering, you sometimes expect it to provide features you can’t, won’t or shouldn’t implement yourself.
The overhead is likely negligible, or was considered a fair tradeoff, or the database is actually better at its job in the given scenario. Hopefully. Sometimes people really do add shitloads of very unnecessary overhead by mistake, or overengineer their solutions terribly (cause it’s fun)
Stupidly bad project we were rushed relentlessly on, because - stop me if you’ve heard this one before - some dimwit promised months’ worth of work “in a couple weeks… by an intern”.
I made it generally known that this whole thing had a snowball’s chance in Hell of getting done on time with a 4-5-man team, they did not deign to take that opinion on board. In fact, they pretty much twisted our arm into shipping some barely working bullshit, causing them to have to do a buttload of manual correction instead. I hope they’re having fun with that. :>
Holy Jesus, what a color scheme.
Just a heads up: if the spam is a problem, you also need to handle it server-side. Anything you do in JS is fencepost security, they’ll trivially get around it.
The enterprises are not going to change their attitude, you might want to. There’s plenty of fair criticism to level at Microsoft, but this is uninformed, inaccurate and even if it weren’t, kind of obnoxious.
Other team members already being familiar with the other alternative makes it a better bet already. Besides, C# is fairly nice, it’s arguably much easier to learn than C++, C# and similarly (or more) high-level languages have been focused more than C++ in a lot of education, etc.
Speedruns can be a lot of fun to watch - the better you know the game, the more fun it can be. Some runs get freaky, but a lot of games have glitchless categories or some kind of ruleset that doesn’t break the game too badly. A lot of glitches are fascinating, too.
Yes, of course. Just make sure you’re abiding by their license, that’ll tell anyone who cares how it may and may not be used.
Absolutely could! I’ve worked in a shop where that was the norm. It was not… fun.
But there’s absolutely nothing linking any then-or-since Norwegian Prime minister to the 22 July attack? I say this as a Norwegian - not only is the original joke simply not offensive in any way, it is hard to try to envision any way it might be. How hard would one have to try to find something objectionable about this?