81–90 of 107 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it feels that way I think your scrum master or entire team is doing a poor job. It shouldn't feel that way if you want it to work.
That's how it's felt at literally every software job I've had that has done the "standup" thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's how it's felt at literally every software job I've had that has done the "standup" thing.
Same here. I've never experienced a place where standups added value (at least from my perspective.). Quite the opposite actually.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've always felt there's a disconnect between two groups of people, those who use a language in their day-to-day work and those who approach it more as an object of study (i.e. academics or hobbyists). The latter view bloat as a bad thing, while it's not the biggest concern for the former (who have more pressing problems!). So for Crockford an expanding language definition is catastrophic, but for people writing web…
I'm not a academic nor hobbyist but work professionally with JavaScript for more than 10 years. I'm also "against" the constant syntactic sugar that gets added with little to no benefits, just leading to JavaScript having a large syntax. Why introduce "classes" which are just sugar on top of existing syntax? Many examples just like this, where sometimes it feels like JavaScript has changes just to have changes. Altho…
You said that, despite the bloat, you won't complain too much because some features make your life easier. That's precisely what I was saying!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've always felt there's a disconnect between two groups of people, those who use a language in their day-to-day work and those who approach it more as an object of study (i.e. academics or hobbyists). The latter view bloat as a bad thing, while it's not the biggest concern for the former (who have more pressing problems!). So for Crockford an expanding language definition is catastrophic, but for people writing web…
And those new features are usually new/different/“better” ways of doing what you could already do in the language. You can totally use JS without using any of the ES6+ syntax.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've always felt there's a disconnect between two groups of people, those who use a language in their day-to-day work and those who approach it more as an object of study (i.e. academics or hobbyists). The latter view bloat as a bad thing, while it's not the biggest concern for the former (who have more pressing problems!). So for Crockford an expanding language definition is catastrophic, but for people writing web…
my feeling was that Crockford’s ‘…good parts’ was intensely pragmatic. About as far away from the academic approach you’re describing as i can imagine. A bigger, multi paradigm language makes it harder to read other peoples code as the chances are higher that they’re employing a different paradigm or alter a different idiom, a clear maintenance burden.
Note that, no where did I argue that bloat is good. I only said that it was tolerable given that some new features are useful. Maintenance burden is a real problem, but is still tolerated in practice.
I don't agree that subsetting a language is far from an academic approach. In fact this is what pretty much every PLT class does in order to make reasoning about language definitions easier.
JSON isn't the be all and end all data format. It's full of ambiguities and has pointless, misleading cruft like filtering "unprintable characters". Plain text is also a dead end and misconception contra UN*X hippies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Same here. I've never experienced a place where standups added value (at least from my perspective.). Quite the opposite actually.
Same. I don't hate them (they last at most 10 min.), but as someone who has been working for more than 12 years in the industry I think managers/teams do daily stand-ups because of cargo cult.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If they don't care, they wont care. We need to accommodate human nature, not change human nature to accommodate corporate requirements. Its irrational to expect a group to rally passionately around every available task. Robotic.
The good question is how to hire people that will care, and whether or not it can be incorporated into a culture.