Earlier quoted context omitted.
htmx sucks: https://htmx.org/essays/htmx-sucks/
So it is bad?
Definitely for some stuff!
The Grug Brained Developer (2022)
81–90 of 603 posts
Re: The Grug Brained Developer (2022)
#82Re: The Grug Brained Developer (2022)
#83This has by far the best discussion of the visitor pattern I've yet to come across.
I don't work in typical OO codebases, so I wasn't aware of what the visitor pattern even is. But there's an _excellent_ book about building an interpreter (and vm) "crafting interpreters". It has a section where it uses the visitor pattern. https://craftinginterpreters.com/representing-code.html#the-... I remember reading through it and not understanding why it had to be this complicated and then just used a tagged u…
As far as I understand it, the limited circumstances when you absolutely need the visitor pattern are when you have type erasure, i.e., can't use a tagged union or its equivalent? In that case visitors are AIUI a very clever trick to use vtables or whatever to get back to your concrete types! but ... clever tricks make grug angry.
Re: The Grug Brained Developer (2022)
#84I send this article as part of onboarding for all new devs we hire. It is super great to keep a fast growing team from falling into the typical cycle of more people, more complexity.
Re: The Grug Brained Developer (2022)
#85Re: The Grug Brained Developer (2022)
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
How does someone know twenty C++ developers and zero C developers though?
Born in the 80s.
That wouldn't stop someone from knowing any C developers. It's still a common language today, and was more common when those 80s kids would have become adults and entered the industry.
Re: The Grug Brained Developer (2022)
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't work in typical OO codebases, so I wasn't aware of what the visitor pattern even is. But there's an _excellent_ book about building an interpreter (and vm) "crafting interpreters". It has a section where it uses the visitor pattern. https://craftinginterpreters.com/representing-code.html#the-... I remember reading through it and not understanding why it had to be this complicated and then just used a tagged u…
It's an engineering tradeoff. https://prog2.de/book/sec-java-expr-problem.html - Not the writeup I was looking for but seems to cover it well. > Why burden ourselves with indirection and complexity when there's a more straight forward way? Because each way has its own tradeoffs that make it more or less difficult to use in particular circumstances. https://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/wadler/papers/expression/expr... - Wad…
Thank you for those links. The first one is especially clear.
However, this is just not something that I typically perceive as a problem. For example in the book that I mentioned above, I didn't feel the need to use it at all. I just added the fields or the functions that were required.
In the first link you provided, the OCaml code seems to use unions as well (I don't know the language). I assume OCaml checks for exhaustive matching, so it seems extremely straight forward to extend this code.
On the other hand I have absolutely no issues with a big switch case in a more simple language. I just had a look at the code I wrote quite a while ago and it looks fine.
Re: The Grug Brained Developer (2022)
#88htmx.
and clojure.
mmmmm.
Re: The Grug Brained Developer (2022)
#89Re: The Grug Brained Developer (2022)
#90I've always wondered at the best way of doing integration tests. There is a lot of material on unit tests, but not so much on integration tests. Does anyone know of a good book on the subject?