131–140 of 180 posts
I've got a CS related degree, but I'm a mostly self-taught dev, and not understanding 90% of the code really makes me reevaluate my career choices. Where and how can I learn this stuff?
I've got a CS related degree, but I'm a mostly self-taught dev, and not understanding 90% of the code really makes me reevaluate my career choices. Where and how can I learn this stuff?
If it's the former, go for it.
If it's the latter, don't worry about it. I have a CS degree, did 6 years on a team writing C++ at Microsoft, and only briefly flirted with understanding this stuff. A couple of the wizard devs on the (very large) team could do it, but they also knew that code needed to be simple above all else, so it was effectively banned in our code base.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't really know what it means, but I've seen it used to work around depth issues in Typescript, but can this use a "trampoline"?
I don't think there's any way to do iteration in the type system (other than recursion), so there's no way around it. I considered forking the compiler to set a deeper limit, but at some point Typescript itself is going to stack overflow. Also that probably goes a bit beyond what Criss is expecting in an interview...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The word "susurrential" returns only two Google results. One is for this post. Does anyone know what this word is supposed to mean?
I believe that is his way of calling us gossipy ultracrepidarianists.
So he wrote all that for the typescript lsp to respond with the answer, but when it compiles down it's nothing? And we're using runes as variables just because? That is pretty neat, and silly. I also think it highlights my natural aversion to static type checking in dynamic languages. I know that I could get sucked into writing a bunch of code for the checker, instead of using my energy for making the application wor…
So he wrote all that for the typescript lsp to respond with the answer, but when it compiles down it's nothing? And we're using runes as variables just because? That is pretty neat, and silly. I also think it highlights my natural aversion to static type checking in dynamic languages. I know that I could get sucked into writing a bunch of code for the checker, instead of using my energy for making the application wor…
“Making the application work” is only half the story. Making a large application stable and maintainable is only really possible with static type safety, IMHO.
So he wrote all that for the typescript lsp to respond with the answer, but when it compiles down it's nothing? And we're using runes as variables just because? That is pretty neat, and silly. I also think it highlights my natural aversion to static type checking in dynamic languages. I know that I could get sucked into writing a bunch of code for the checker, instead of using my energy for making the application wor…
this is why i love ts when not working for a megacorp. when the ts gets too cray i just nope out. throw an any or as in there and get on with my day. wouldn't pass a code review but i don't care
Personally I also find coming up with the correct types to be gratifying if they’re a little tricky.
I've got a CS related degree, but I'm a mostly self-taught dev, and not understanding 90% of the code really makes me reevaluate my career choices. Where and how can I learn this stuff?
I've got a CS related degree, but I'm a mostly self-taught dev, and not understanding 90% of the code really makes me reevaluate my career choices. Where and how can I learn this stuff?