978 Matching Annotations
  1. Last 7 days
    1. If you are starting without previous knowledge about any framework, you're gonna have a bad time. Just go with what you know if there are no real reasons to choose something else.

      programming truths

    1. In terms of this analogy, a lot of objections to end-user programming sound to me like arguing that Home Depot is a waste of time because their customers will never be able to build their own skyscrapers. And then on the other side are the people arguing that people will be able to build their own skyscrapers and it will change the world. I just think it would be nice if people had the tools to put up their own shelves if they wanted to.
    1. Debugging is the process of finding and removing errors (bugs) from a software program. Bugs occur in programs when a line of code or a statement conflicts with other elements of the code. We also call errors or defects in hardware bugs.

      Debugging and debugging software

      Debugging is the process of finding and removing errors (bugs) from a software program. Bugs occur in programs when a line of code or a statement conflicts with other elements of the code. We also call errors or defects in hardware bugs.

    1. Review: a formal assessment or examination of something with the possibility or intention of instituting change if necessary.

      (comment with good examples of code review comments)

  2. Jun 2022
    1. YouArentGonnaNeedIt (often abbreviated YAGNI, or YagNi on this wiki) is an ExtremeProgramming practice which states: "Always implement things when you actually need them, never when you just foresee that you need them."

      Only implement features in code when you actually need them. Never implement features that you anticipate needing, because you aren't gonna need it (YAGNI).

    1. But to my knowledge, this is the first time anyone has collected public info about Bigco dev environments in one place

      Examples of big companies moving to development in the cloud

    1. It is NOT an exception if the username is not valid or the password is not correct. Those are things you should expect in the normal flow of operation. Exceptions are things that are not part of the normal program operation and are rather rare.

      Exceptions are things that are not part of the normal program operation and are rather rare.

    2. Exceptions should be reserved for what's truly exceptional.

      Exceptions should be reserved for what is truly exceptional.

    3. Make sure the exceptions are at the same level of abstraction as the rest of your routine.

      Make sure that exceptions are at the same level of abstraction as the rest of your routine.

    4. Don't use exceptions if the error can be handled locally

      Don't use exceptions if the error can be handled locally.

    5. Use exceptions to notify about things that should not be ignored.

      Use exceptions for things that should not be ignored.

    6. if the function's assumptions about its inputs are violated, it should throw an exception instead of returning normally.

      If a function's assumptions about it's inputs are violated, throw an exception.

  3. May 2022
    1. I think RSpec should provide around(:context)/around(:all). Not because of any particular use case, but simply for API consistency. It's much simpler to tell users "there are 3 kinds of hooks (before, after and around) and each can be used with any of 3 scopes (example, context and suite)". Having some kinds of hooks work with only some kinds of scopes makes the API inconsistent and forces us to add special case code to emit warnings and also write extra documentation for this fact.
    2. I've been thinking of looking into implementing this in rspec-core, primarily to make the API more consistent (e.g. so that you can combine any scope -- example/context/suite -- with any hook type before/after/around).
    1. Knuth recommended getting familiar with the program by picking up one particular part and "navigating" the program to study just that part. (See https://youtu.be/D1jhVMx5lLo?t=4103 at 1:08:25, transcribed a bit at https://shreevatsa.net/tex/program/videos/s04/) He seems to find using the index (at the back of the book, and on each two-page spread in the book) to be a really convenient way of "navigate" the program (and indeed randomly jumping through code, as you said), and he thinks that one of the convenient things about the "web" format is that you can explore it the way you want. This is really strange (to us) as the affordances we're used to from IDEs / code browsers etc are really not there

      I can't help but think that currentgen programmers are misunderstanding Knuth and anachronizing him, with their being a product of the current programming regime where most never lived in a world without structured programming, for example, when we hear "literate programming", we attempt to understand it by building off our conception of current programming practices and try to work out what Knuth could mean given widespread modern affordances as a precondition, when really Knuth is just advocating for something that approximates (with ink and paper) currentgen tooling, and is therefore in fact more primitive than our reference point which we are trying to understand as being capable of being improved upon, but Knuth's LP is an improvement nonetheless of something even more primitive further still.

    1. With every generation of computing comes a dominant new software or hardware stack that sweeps away the competition and catapults a fledgling technology into the mainstream.I call it the Canonical Stack (CS).Think the WinTel dynasty in the 80s and 90s, with Microsoft on 95% of all PCs with “Intel inside.” Think LAMP and MEAN stack. Think Amazon’s S3 becoming a near universal API for storage. Think of Kubernetes and Docker for cloud orchestration.

      Explanation of Canonical Stack (CS)

    1. By offering to have a real-time technical discussion, you are reframing the code review process away from an 'instructor correcting student' dynamic and into a 'colleagues working together' mindset.
    1. Level 5: Stop the line. The highest level of code review comments. Borrowing the term from Toyota's manufacturing process this is when the code reviewer noticed something in the PR that signals a major defect.

      Stop the line - 5th type of MR comments

    2. Level 4: Infringement. This is where things get more serious, note that infringement means rules were broken. In this context, rules can mean a number of things, from the more obvious feature spec and framework rules to things like style guides and coding principles.

      Infringement - 4th type of MR comments

    3. Level 3: Suggestions. These can also be thought of as recommendations and alternatives.

      Suggestions - 3rd type of MR comments

    4. Level 2: Nitpicks. Usually, comments about grammar errors and minor stylistic issues/typos go there. The solution to the nitpicks is usually very obvious and if the solution is opinionated, the opinion is not strongly held. Naming a method foobarGenerator vs foobarFactory goes in here, and nitpick comments often start with Nitpick:.

      Nitpicks - 2nd type of MR comments

    5. Level 1: Clarifications. I also think of these as sanity checks, I may even start the comment with something like I may be completely off the base here... or Just to sanity check...

      Clarifications - 1st type of MR comments

    1. The problem is that a lot of old school website devs can write jQuery and very very little actual JavaScript.

      This happens to be true of many of the new/up-to-date Web developers I see, too.

      Anecdote: I never really did StackOverflow, either as a reader or a contributor. One day several years ago (well after StackOverflow had taken off), I figured that since I see people complain about JS being confusing all the time and since I know JS well, then I'd go answer a bunch of questions. The only problem was that when I went to the site and looked at the JS section, it was just a bunch of jQuery and framework shit—too much to simply ignore and try to find the ones that were actually questions about JS-the-language. "I know," I thought. "I'm in the JS section. I'll just manually rewrite the URL to jump to the ECMAScript section, which surely exists, right? So I did that, and I just got redirected to the JS section...

    Tags

    Annotators

    1. now something breaks elsewhere that was unsuspected and subtle. Maybe it’s an off-by-one problem, or the polarity of a sign seems reversed. Maybe it’s a slight race condition that’s hard to tease out. Nevermind, I can patch over this by changing a <= to a <, or fixing the sign, or adding a lock: I’m still fleshing out the system and getting an idea of the entire structure. Eventually, these little hacks tend to metastasize into a cancer that reaches into every dependent module because the whole reason things even worked was because of the “cheat”; when I go back to excise the hack, I eventually conclude it’s not worth the effort and so the next best option is to burn the whole thing down and rewrite it…but unfortunately, we’re already behind schedule and over budget so the re-write never happens, and the hack lives on.

      I'm having real difficulty understanding what is going on here and in what situations such cascading problems occur.

      Is it a case of under-abstraction?

    1. as if the only option we had to eat was factory-farmed fast food, and we didn’t have any way to make home-cooked meals

      See also An app can be a home-cooked meal along with this comment containing RMS's remarks with his code-as-recipe metaphor in the HN thread about Sloan's post:

      some of you may not ever write computer programs, but perhaps you cook. And if you cook, unless you're really great, you probably use recipes. And, if you use recipes, you've probably had the experience of getting a copy of a recipe from a friend who's sharing it. And you've probably also had the experience — unless you're a total neophyte — of changing a recipe. You know, it says certain things, but you don't have to do exactly that. You can leave out some ingredients. Add some mushrooms, 'cause you like mushrooms. Put in less salt because your doctor said you should cut down on salt — whatever. You can even make bigger changes according to your skill. And if you've made changes in a recipe, and you cook it for your friends, and they like it, one of your friends might say, “Hey, could I have the recipe?” And then, what do you do? You could write down your modified version of the recipe and make a copy for your friend. These are the natural things to do with functionally useful recipes of any kind.

      Now a recipe is a lot like a computer program. A computer program's a lot like a recipe: a series of steps to be carried out to get some result that you want. So it's just as natural to do those same things with computer programs — hand a copy to your friend. Make changes in it because the job it was written to do isn't exactly what you want. It did a great job for somebody else, but your job is a different job. And after you've changed it, that's likely to be useful for other people. Maybe they have a job to do that's like the job you do. So they ask, “Hey, can I have a copy?” Of course, if you're a nice person, you're going to give a copy. That's the way to be a decent person.

    2. If you’re a coder, when’s the last time you just quickly built something to solve a problem for yourself or simply because it was a fun idea?

      And how future-proof was the result or how easy was it to make sure you could share it with others in a form that they could make use of (and not be dependent on you or some third-party or their internet connection)?

    1. This column will continue only if I hear from people who use literate-programming systems that they have not designed themselves. and it did not continue.
    1. To keep tiny mistakes from crashing our software or trashing our data, we write more software to do error checking and correction.

      This is supposed to be the justification for increasing code size. So what's the excuse for projects today? Software of today is not exactly known for adding more "error checking and correction". It feels more like growth for growth's sake, or stimulating some developer's sense of "wouldn't it be cool if [...]?".

    1. suppose when you needed to make a permanent edit to the style sheet on your homepage, you opened up the CSS viewer, made the edit, and the result persists—not just in your browser, but by changing the very style sheet itself
    1. an acknowledgement of network effects: LP is unlikely to ever catch on enough to be the majority, so there needs to be a way for a random programmer using their preferred IDE/editor to edit a "literate" program

      This is part of the reason why I advocate for language skins for comparatively esoteric languages like Ada.

    2. in other words, there would be no "weave" step

      Well, there could still be a weave step—same as there is like with triple scripts (to go from compilation form back to the original modules) or with Markdown, which should be readable both as plain text and in rendered form.

    1. memory usage and (lack of) parallelism are concerns

      Memory usage is a concern? wat

      It's a problem, sure, if you're programming the way NPMers do. So don't do that.

      This is a huge problem I've noticed when it comes to people programming in JS—even, bizarrely, people coming from other languages like Java or C# and where you'd expect them to at least try to continue to do things in JS just like they're comfortable doing in their own language. Just because it's there (i.e. possible in the language, e.g. dynamic language features) doesn't mean you have to use it...

      (Relevant: How (and why) developers use the dynamic features of programming languages https://users.dcc.uchile.cl/~rrobbes/p/EMSE-features.pdf)

      The really annoying thing is that the NPM style isn't even idiomatic for the language! So much of what the NodeJS camp does is so clearly done in frustration and the byproduct of a desire to work against the language. Case in point: the absolutely nonsensical attitude about always using triple equals (as if to ward off some evil spirits) and the undeniable contempt that so many have for this.

  4. www.mindprod.com www.mindprod.com
    1. local a (e.g. aPoint) param p (e.g. pPoint) member instance m (e.g. mPoint) static s (e.g. sPoint)

      This is really only a problem in languages that make the unfortunate mistake of allowing references to unqualified names that get fixed up as if the programmer had written this.mPoint or Foo.point. Even if you're writing in a language where that's possible, just don't write code like that! Just because you can doesn't mean you have to.

      The only real exception is distinguishing locals from parameters. Keep your procedures short and it's less of a problem.

    1. This can get much worse than the above example; the number of \’s required is exponential in the nesting depth. Rc fixes this by making the backquote a unary operator whose argument is a command, like this: size=‘{wc -l ‘{ls -t|sed 1q}}
    1. The argument used to propose its use is to avoid the construction of multiple volatile objects. This supposed advantage is not real in virtual machines with efficient garbage collection mechanisms.

      Consider a Sufficiently Smart Compiler/Runtime where a multiply-instanced class has the exact same runtime characteristics as code that has been hand-"tuned" to use a singleton.

    1. When creating a singleton, the author is making the assumption that no program will ever have any reason to have more than one instance of the class.  This is a big assumption, and it often proves wrong later on when the requirements change.
    2. Avoid singletons from the start.
    1. Stop using TODO for everything in your comments that requires you to do something later.

      Possible alternatives of TODO: * FIXME - something is broken * HACK/OPTIMIZE - the code is suboptimal and should be refactored * BUG - there is a bug in the code * CHECKME/REVIEW - the code needs to be reviewed * DOCME - the code needs to be documented (either in codebase or external documentation) * TESTME - the specified code needs to be tested or that tests need to be written for that selection of code

  5. Apr 2022
    1. I'm not sure what $name is

      This post is filled with programming/debugging missteps that are the result of nothing other than overlooking what's already right in front of the person who's writing.

    2. comparing the event and window.event isn't enough to know if event is a variable in scope in the function or if it's being looked up in the window object

      Sounds like a good use case for an expansion to the jsmirrors API.

    1. Then, if the string can be represented as ASCII, only one byte of memory is used per character. If the string uses more extended characters, it might end up using as many as 4 bytes per character. We can see how much memory an object needs using sys.getsizeof()

      "a" takes less bytes than "❄", which takes less bytes than "💵"

    1. I feel like better code visualization would solve a lot of my problems. Or at least highlight them.

      The other commenter talks about a typical sw.eng. approach to visualization (flame graphs), but I want programs visualized as a manufacturing/packing/assembly line on a factory floor. Almost like node editors like Unreal's Blueprints, but in three dimensions, and shit visibly moving around between tools on the line in a way that you can actually perceive. Run the testcase on a loop, so you have a constant stream of "shit visibly moving around", and it runs at fractional speed so the whole process takes, say 10 seconds from front-to-back instead of near instantaneously like it normally would (and allow the person who's debugging to control the time scaling, of course). You find bugs by walking the line and seeing, "oh, man, this purple shit is supposed to be a flanged green gewgaw at this point in the line", so you walk over and fix it.

      (This is what I want VR to really be used for, instead of what's capturing people's attention today—games and lame substitutes for real world interaction like Zuckerberg is advocating for.)

    1. Let’s look at a recent paper by Xia, Bao, Lo, Xing, Hassan, & Li entitled Measuring Program Comprehension: A Large-Scale Field Study with Professionals and published in IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 44, 951-976, 2018. This paper is quite interesting in that it describes in great details how the figures are obtained. And it says that Comprehension took on average ~58%.

      Developers spend most of their time figuring the system out

    1. The SE server is also responsible for building ebooks when they get released or updated. This is done using our ebook production command line toolset.

      It would be great if these tools were also authored to be a book—a comprehensive, machine-executable runbook.

    1. # Input Input: 123, Output: Input: 121, Output: Input: 111, Output: Input: 123454321, Output: Input 123123, Output: # Instruction Output true if input is a palindrome # Output Input: 123, Output: false Input: 121, Output: true Input: 111, Output: true Input: 123454321, Output: true Input 123123, Output: false

      Example of using GPT-3 for programming

    1. Using named arguments is nice for languages that support it, but this is not always a possibility. Even in Python, where time.sleep is defined with a single argument named secs, we can’t call sleep(secs=300) due to implementation reasons. In that case, we can give the value a name instead.Instead of this:time.sleep(300)Do this:sleep_seconds = 300 time.sleep(sleep_seconds)Now the code is unambiguous, and readable without having to consult the documentation.

      Putting units in variable names

    1. Core: like an engine in a car. The product is meaningless without it.Necessary: like a car’s spare wheel. It’s rarely used but when needed, its function decides the success of the system.Added value: like a car’s cup-holder. It’s nice to have but the product is perfectly usable without it.Unique Selling Point: the main reason people should buy your product instead of your rivals. For example, your car is the best off-road vehicle.

      4 categories of software features

  6. Mar 2022
    1. front-end dumpster fires, where nothing that is over 18 months old, can build, compile or get support anymore. In my day job, I inherit "fun" tasks as 'get this thing someone glued together with webpack4 and frontend-du-jour to work with webpack5 in 2022
    1. In 1994, The Unix-Haters Handbook was published containing a long list of missives about the software—everything from overly-cryptic command names that were optimized for Teletype machines, to irreversible file deletion, to unintuitive programs with far too many options. Over twenty years later, an overwhelming majority of these complaints are still valid even across the dozens of modern derivatives. Unix had become so widely used that changing its behavior would have challenging implications. For better
    1. Object hierarchies are very different from relational hierarchies. Relational hierarchies focus on data and its relationships, whereas objects manage not only data, but also their identity and the behavior centered around that data.
    1. it doesn't mean that we actually want all the instances in the heap to be reinitialized

      It's conceivable that people would find it overly cumbersome having to deal with this when prototyping from a REPL—enough to consider it a bad experience to keep them from trying.

      A live IDE could recognize that the user probably doesn't want that to happen for a given object, since it only just appeared a little while ago, so it should offer some fixup to save time for the user.

    1. The PA group has given the name cliche to commonly used programming constructs.

      Later the industry began to call them "patterns" (cf Gabriel).

    1. Another unanchored thought I've had on these matters is coming around to viewing namespace collision as a feature, not a bug. If a programming system is designed to allow you to link against a given module and more or less ignore any and every transitive dependency that this will bring in—because the programming environment makes it excessively easy to do so—then that's a pretty strong reason to consider whether or not that approach to information hiding is actually an anti-feature.

      On the other hand, if during your work on a program you have to reconcile the names used within the system (i.e., such that no two module names collide), then it subtly encourages you to make sure you are able to account for every module that your program depends on.

      People reflexively assume that this would make it cumbersome (or even intractable) to work on a program any larger than a toy, but empiraclly we can observe that a single, shared namespace can, by and large, scale way better than these protests would lead us to believe. It's not out of the question that a project might reach, say, 100kloc with very little friction arising as a consequence of this sort of forced reckoning. (And it's worth considering of the friction that it does impose: is it any worse than the costs we've observed over the last ~10 years from the systems that set out to solve this problem?)

    2. Understanding a strange codebase is hard.

      John Nagle is fond of making the observation that there are three fundamental and recurring questions that dominate one's concerns when programming in C.

      More broadly (speaking of software development generally), one of the two big frustrations I have when dealing with a foreign codebase is the simple question, "Where the hell does this type/function come from?" (esp. in C and, unfortunately, in Go, too, since the team didn't take the opportunity to fix it there when they could have...). There's something to be said for Intellisense-like smarts in IDEs, but I think the criticism of IDEs is justified. I shouldn't need an IDE just to be able to make sense of what I'm reading.

      The other big frustration I often have is "Where does the program really start?" Gilad Bracha seems to really get this, from what I've understood of his descriptions about how module definitions work in Newspeak. Even though it's reviled, I think Java was really shrewd about its decisions here (and on the previous problem, too, for that matter—don't know exactly where FooBar comes from? welp, at least you can be reasonably sure that it's in a file called FooBar.java somewhere, so you can do a simple (and cheap) search across file names instead of a (slow, more expensive) full-text search). Except for static initializers, Java classes are just definitions. You don't get to have live code in the top-level scope the way you can with JS or Python or Go. As cumbersome as Java's design decision might feel like it's getting in your way when you're working on your own projects and no matter how much you hate it for making you pay the boilerplate tax, when it comes to diving in to a foreign codebase, it's great when modules are "inert". They don't get to do anything, save for changing the visibility of some symbol (e.g. the FooBar of FooBar.java). If you want to know how a program works, then you can trace the whole thing, in theory, starting from main. That's really convenient when it means you don't have to think about how something might be dependent on a loop in an arbitrary file that immediately executes on import, or any other top-level diddling (i.e. critical functionality obscured by some esoteric global mutable state).

  7. Feb 2022
    1. the guide shall be written in such a way that all we have to do is produce the guide itself and then a computer can do the heavy lifting—where we might otherwise expect a separate, possibly GUI-driven, "app" to be created for the end user to interact with, we accomplish the same effect by making the guide very detailed—in part also an attempt to evoke the style and quality of old equipment operation and repair manuals that used to be available, when such manuals could be expected to include e.g. full schematics. If done correctly, this should be sufficient for the guide itself to be interpretable by a machine.

      "comprehensive codebook"?

    Tags

    Annotators

    1. "Context" manipulation is one of big topic and there are many related terminologies (academic, language/implementation specific, promotion terminologies). In fact, there is confusing. In few minutes I remember the following related words and it is good CS exam to describe each :p Thread (Ruby) Green thread (CS terminology) Native thread (CS terminology) Non-preemptive thread (CS terminology) Preemptive thread (CS terminology) Fiber (Ruby/using resume/yield) Fiber (Ruby/using transfer) Fiber (Win32API) Generator (Python/JavaScript) Generator (Ruby) Continuation (CS terminology/Ruby, Scheme, ...) Partial continuation (CS terminology/ functional lang.) Exception handling (many languages) Coroutine (CS terminology/ALGOL) Semi-coroutine (CS terminology) Process (Unix/Ruby) Process (Erlang/Elixir) setjmp/longjmp (C) makecontext/swapcontext (POSIX) Task (...)
    1. This (somewhat contrived) example allows the inner loop to abandon processing early: callcc {|cont|   for i in 0..4     print "\n#{i}: "     for j in i*5...(i+1)*5       cont.call() if j == 17       printf "%3d", j     end   end }
  8. Jan 2022
    1. Make simple changes to (some carefully chosen fork of) any project in an afternoon, no matter how large it is. Gain an hour’s worth of understanding for an hour’s worth of effort, rather than a quantum leap in understanding after a week or month of effort.

      Accessibility is more important, after all, than Kartik says it is (elsewhere; cf recent Mastodon posts).

  9. www.npmjs.com www.npmjs.com
    1. The yieldable objects currently supported are: promises thunks (functions) array (parallel execution) objects (parallel execution) generators (delegation) generator functions (delegation) Nested yieldable objects are supported, meaning you can nest promises within objects within arrays, and so on!
    1. <a href="https://web.hypothes.is/help/" class="hyp-u-horizontal-spacing--2 hyp-u-layout-row--center HelpPanel-tabs__link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><span>Help topics</span>

      How to get remote control over the Hypothesis sidebar (one way, at least):

      1. Use the bookmarklet to open the sidebar
      2. Click the sidebar's "Help" icon in the top right
      3. Right click the "Help topics" link and select "Inspect" in the context menu to open the element in the browser devtools
      4. Remove "noopener" from the link (easiest way is to just delete the element's "rel" attribute)
      5. Change the link target to something other than "_blank" (e.g. "foobar")
      6. In the sidebar, click the now-modified "Help topics" link
      7. For good measure, in the new tab that opens, navigate to the same URL loaded in the sidebar (should be something like https://hypothes.is/app.html with a site-specific URL fragment; you can get the actual URL from the devtools JS console with document.documentURI, or right-clicking the sidebar and selecting "View Frame Info")

      From the secondary tab ("foobar" opened by click in step #6) you should now have unrestricted, scriptable access to the DOM of the original sidebar iframe, using e.g. the JS console in devtools instance or a bookmarklet applied to the secondary tab—access it as window.opener.

    Tags

    Annotators

    1. Smalltalk image is unlike a collection of Java class files in that it can store your programs (both source and compiled bytecode), their data, and execution state. You can quit and save your work while some code is executing, move your image to an entirely different machine, load your image… and your program picks up where it left off.

      Advantage of *Smalltalk** VM

    2. Smalltalk has a virtual machine which allows you to execute your code on any platform where the VM can run. The image however is not only all your code, but the entire Smalltalk system, including said virtual machine (because of course it’s written in itself).

      Smalltalk has a VM

    1. This was because dynamic typing doesn’t give the safety net that static typing does. So you write more tests. Which is a good thing.

      Tests are a good thing, but not all devs are even aware of the loss of safety net and so there's no guarantee that using a dynamic language results in more tests.

      Using tests and static-types together would mean that there's whole categories of bugs that get eliminated while also getting more coverage for less lines of test-code.

  10. Dec 2021
    1. I think one of the ways that remote work changes this is that I can do other things while I think through a tricky problem; I can do dishes or walk my dog or something instead of trying to look busy in a room with 6-12 other people who are furiously typing because that's how the manager and project manager understand that work gets done.

      Way work often looks like during remote dev work

    1. What is an assembler language? https://en.itpedia.nl/2019/11/11/wat-is-een-assembler-taal/ An #assembler_language is a low-level programming_language designed for a specific processor type. We can produce Assembler by compiling #source_code from a high-level programming language (such as C / C ++). But we can also write #programs in this language ourselves. In turn, we can convert Assembler_code into machine_code using an assembler.

  11. Nov 2021
    1. What Makes Ruby on Rails Perfect for Marketplace Development?AlinaE-Commerce & SaaS StrategistMarketplaceRuby/RailsHomeBlogEntrepreneurshipWhat Makes Ruby on Rails Perfect for Marketplace Development?PublishedJul 13, 2020UpdatedJul 13, 202012 min readThe last several years have been marked with the rise of different marketplaces. Airbnb, AliExpress, Etsy, Booking.com are on everyone’s lips. That's not surprising that the idea of launching a second Amazon or eBay seems so appealing. To win the e-commerce race, entrepreneurs focus on providing excellent customer experience and build fast-loading and scalable websites. Besides, business owners take various security measures to protect their customers’ sensitive information. This way, they can gain clients’ trust and boost sales. When building a custom marketplace, what technology stack is best to achieve all these goals? Our answer is simple: Ruby on Rails. In this article, we will fill you in on the Ruby on Rails marketplace development. At Codica, we are passionate fans of this framework and have built numerous e-commerce platforms with its help. Based on our experience, we will discuss the key reasons to choose RoR for building a successful marketplace.

      The last several years have been marked with the rise of different marketplaces. Airbnb, AliExpress, Etsy, Booking.com are on everyone’s lips. That's not surprising that the idea of launching a second Amazon or eBay seems so appealing.

      To win the e-commerce race, entrepreneurs focus on providing excellent customer experience and build fast-loading and scalable websites. Besides, business owners take various security measures to protect their customers’ sensitive information. This way, they can gain clients’ trust and boost sales.

      When building a custom marketplace, what technology stack is best to achieve all these goals? Our answer is simple: Ruby on Rails.

      In this article, we will fill you in on the Ruby on Rails marketplace development. At Codica, we are passionate fans of this framework and have built numerous e-commerce platforms with its help. Based on our experience, we will discuss the key reasons to choose RoR for building a successful marketplace.

  12. Oct 2021
    1. The main idea behind the space-based pattern is the distributed shared memory to mitigate issues that frequently occur at the database level. The assumption is that by processing most of operations using in-memory data we can avoid extra operations in the database, thus any future problems that may evolve from there (for example, if your user activity data entity has changed, you don’t need to change a bunch of code persisting to & retrieving that data from the DB).The basic approach is to separate the application into processing units (that can automatically scale up and down based on demand), where the data will be replicated and processed between those units without any persistence to the central database (though there will be local storages for the occasion of system failures).

      Space-based architecture

    2. Microservices architecture consists of separately deployed services, where each service would have ideally single responsibility. Those services are independent of each other and if one service fails others will not stop running.

      Microservices architecture

    3. First of all, if you know the basics of architecture patterns, then it is easier for you to follow the requirements of your architect. Secondly, knowing those patterns will help you to make decisions in your code

      2 main advantages of using design patterns:

      • easier to follow requirements of an architect
      • easier to make decisions in your code
    4. Mikrokernel Architecture, also known as Plugin architecture, is the design pattern with two main components: a core system and plug-in modules (or extensions). A great example would be a Web browser (core system) where you can install endless extensions (or plugins).

      Microkernel (plugin) architecture

    5. The idea behind this pattern is to decouple the application logic into single-purpose event processing components that asynchronously receive and process events. This pattern is one of the popular distributed asynchronous architecture patterns known for high scalability and adaptability.

      Event-driven architecture: high scalability and adaptability

    6. It is the most common architecture for monolithic applications. The basic idea behind the pattern is to divide the app logic into several layers each encapsulating specific role. For example, the Persistence layer would be responsible for the communication of your app with the database engine.

      Layered architecture

    1. Another option is the use the functional library Ramda, while the syntax may be a bit different from the Ruby and Pure JS version, I find it to be more declarive: list = [null, "say", "kenglish", "co", null] R.reject(R.isNil, list) // return new array [ 'say', 'kenglish', 'co' ]
    1. In my method, program segments are embedded in the midst of a word processor document--like raisins in cake--so that the emphasis is on the explanation rather than the code.
    1. Any language or system that does not allow full flowing and arbitrarily long comments is seriously behind the times. That we use escape characters to “escape” from code to comment is backwards. Ideally, comment should be the default, with a way to signal the occasional lines of code.

      Sounds like literate programming.

    1. I'm not a naturally quick programmer. Learning to program was a real struggle for me and I was pretty slow at it for a long time (and I still am in aspects that I haven't practiced). My "one weird trick" is that I've explicitly worked on speeding up things that I do frequently and most people have not.
    1. Ungar, around @1:00:00:

      I try to explain to people that the notion of compiler is broken. Of course I learned this from Smalltalk, but what we want to build is experiences--artificial realities that convince you that your source code is real. It's directly executed. There's no lag between editing and running[...] The environment stresses things in your program, not tools--which is another rant I have. It's this whole idea that we want to put you in an artificial reality--I got that from Randy [Smith]--in which it's easy and natural and low-cognitive-burden to get the computer to do what you want it to do, rather than running language translators that turn weird strings of text into bits the machine can run

    1. Wet behind the ears: the ones that have just started working as a professional programmers and need lots of guidance. Sort of knows what they are doing: professional programmers, who have sort of figured what is going on and can mostly finish their tasks on their own. Experienced: the ones who have been around the block for a while and are most likely the brains behind all the major design decisions of a large software project. Coworkers usually turn to them when they need advice for a hard technical problem. Some programmers will never reach this level, despite their official title stating otherwise (but more on that later).

      3 levels of programming experience:

      1. wet behind the ears
      2. sort of knows what they are doing
      3. experienced
    1. The problem with the first approach is that it considers software development to be a deterministic process when, in fact, it’s stochastic. In other words, you can’t accurately determine how long it will take to write a particular piece of code unless you have already written it.

      Estimation around software development is a stochastic process

  13. Sep 2021
    1. you're guilty of making the same mistake as people who used to say that templates and styles and JavaScript should be in separate files

      At last, another one realizing that they ha dbeen structuring MVC web-apps counter-intuitively for decades.

    1. This is what I call a leaky abstraction. TCP attempts to provide a complete abstraction of an underlying unreliable network, but sometimes, the network leaks through the abstraction and you feel the things that the abstraction can’t quite protect you from. This is but one example of what I’ve dubbed the Law of Leaky Abstractions:
    1. I don’t even minify page assets

      Good. Don't. The number of people who think this is a virtue is frightening. The rationale is usually not well-reasoned and whatever values they pretend to hold can almost always be shown to be hollow.

    1. At the same time, details about programming language semantics are quite precise and when articles like this get things sort of wrong, it just leads to more confusion.
    1. This post is about all the major disadvantages of Julia. Some of it will just be rants about things I particularly don't like - hopefully they will be informative, too.

      It seems like Julia is not just about pros:

      • Compile time latency
      • Large memory consumption
      • Julia can't easily integrate into other languages
      • Weak static analysis
      • The core language is unstable
      • The ecosystem is immature
      • The type system works poorly
          • You can't extend existing types with data
          • Abstract interfaces are unenforced and undiscoverable
          • Subtyping is an all-or-nothing thing
      • The iterator protocol is weird and too hard to use
      • Functional programming primitives are not well designed
      • Misc gripes (no Path type and no Option type)
  14. Aug 2021
    1. I really hope they keep breaking it. Being the lead on a library for several years, most of the forced refactors were pretty straight forward and in almost every case made our code either more sound or easier to be consumed. Now I work on a runtime that embeds TypeScript and 3.5.1 has broken some code, thought it took me all of about 15 minutes to make the changes to adopt it, and in every case, it broke because we were being a bit loose with the types. While it didn't find any bugs, it made the code more "safe".

      I really hope they keep breaking it.

    1. Changing every built-in function to accept anys would also "break" no one, but that doesn't make it a good idea. Part of TypeScript's value proposition is to catch errors; failing to catch an error is a reduction in that value and is something we have to weigh carefully against "Well maybe I meant that" cases.
    1. Aside to global and local scope there is also something one could call a “block” scope. This is not an “official” type of scope, but it does exist. Block scope was introduced to JavaScript as a part of the ES6 specification. It was introduced along with two new types of variables let and const.