14 Matching Annotations
  1. Mar 2021
  2. Feb 2021
    1. it is inconvenient to write specific implementations for each datatype contained, especially if the code for each datatype is virtually identical. For example, in C++, this duplication of code can be circumvented by defining a class template
    1. Using a terminus to indicate a certain outcome - in turn - allows for much stronger interfaces across nested activities and less guessing! For example, in the new endpoint gem, the not_found terminus is then wired to a special “404 track” that handles the case of “model not found”. The beautiful thing here is: there is no guessing by inspecting ctx[:model] or the like - the not_found end has only one meaning!
  3. Jan 2021
    1. Frankly, if the Ubuntu Desktop team “switch” from making a deb of Chromium to making a snap, I doubt they’d switch back. It’s a tremendous amount of work for developer(s) to maintain numerous debs across all supported releases. Maintaining a single snap is just practically and financially more sensible.
    2. This example of the chromium really shows that unless snaps or other similar format was used, applications would have to be sometime very heavily patched to work on older versions of systems to the point that it generates so much work that it would not be worth do to it otherwise, or at least not worth when the snap option exists and doesn’t require that much more work.
  4. Nov 2020
    1. We all know that real business logic does not belong in the presentation layer, but what about simple presentation-oriented things like coloring alternate rows in table or marking the selected option in a <select> dropdown? It seems equally wrong to ask the controller/business logic code to compute these down to simple booleans in order to reduce the logic in the presentation template. This route just lead to polluting the business layer code with presentation-oriented logic.
    2. Templates with logic versus "logic-less" templates is a hotly debated point among template language designer and users. Dust straddles the divide by adopting a "less logic" stance.
  5. Oct 2020
  6. Apr 2020
  7. Aug 2019
    1. 112(2.1), 112(2.2) or 112(2.4), or section 187.2 or 187.3 or subsection 258(3) or 258(5)
      • 112(2.1), (2.2) - no deduction for specified financial institution in certain circumstances
      • 112(2.4) - no deduction for a corporation in certain circumstances involving guarantees
      • 187.2 - Tax on dividends on taxable preferred shares
      • 187.3 - Tax on dividends on taxable RFI shares
      • 258(3) - Deemed interest on certain preferred share dividends received by corporations
      • 258(5) - Deemed interest on certain shares where dividend is not deductible by virtue of 112(2.2) or (2.4) [both sections involve dividends received by corporations]