John

@DmMacniel @vzq

> Given the nature of JS running only on a single thread.

No no, I think you found the language flaw.

@planet @clojure

“Traditionally, testing was often relegated to the final stages of development, just before the release”

I was going to dismiss this as another strawman - the same strawman that we’ve been whipping since Winston Royce, 1970.

But then I see:

“At the outset of a project, during the planning phase, testers should collaborate with developers and stakeholders to understand the requirements and define clear, testable acceptance criteria.”

How did we get back to waterfall?

@Kecessa no you missed my point. You change the behaviour of the producer, not the consumer.

@Kecessa @grue knowing that the source will be published discourages bad actors from putting crap into the program in the first place.

And if they do it anyway, other people can come along and repackage it without the bad bits, like vscodium.

@eveninghere @ruffsl that claim’s correct. But so far it doesn’t have great performance on a single core.

@errer @pro_grammer

I believe that the trick is not to show the developers the bill.

Let the developers all tell each other “it’s cheap because you don’t have to buy the servers; you only pay for what you use!”

Only managers see the real price.

@armchair_progamer

Awful naming. Forgetting the fortune 500 company you’re already thinking of, there’s already a Meta Lang, abbreviated to ML.

Besides that, does it have any ‘meta’ features? E.g. Homoiconicity?

@okamiueru @balder1993

It’s an overloaded term:

“Dependency inversion” is a language-agnostic technique for producing testable, loosely-coupled software.

“Dependency injection” just means dependencies should be passed in through the constructor, instead of being magically new()'d whereever.

“DI frameworks” are Satan’s farts. Classpath-scanning nonsense that turns compile-time errors into runtime errors. Not only is your Ctr still coupled to your Svc, but both are now coupled to Spring.

@onlinepersona

An enum is a sum type because the number of inhabitants of the enum is the sum of the inhabitants of its parts.

A product type’s number of inhabitants is the product of its parts’ inhabitants. So a struct would fit that definition, or a pair, or a tuple.

Looking at the pic on your Cartesian product link:
if A is an enum {x,y,z} and B is an enum {1,2,3}, then a struct AxB has 9 possible inhabitants.

@onlinepersona @armchair_progamer

A type has a number of ‘inhabitants’. ‘Sum’ indeed corresponds to adding the possible inhabitants together.

A Boolean has two inhabitants - true and false. A byte has 256 inhabitants. A BoolOrByte type has 258 inhabitants.

If you have BoolByte pair, that’s a product type - 512 possible inhabitants.

It may make no fucking sense depending on your exposure to Java, where Void (literally ‘empty’) has an inhabitant, and Boolean has 5.