How bad can it be, it’s not like we’re sharing state secrets

When a news headline ends with a question mark, the answer is no.

Sure, I didn’t claim that the bad ecosystem makes the language as such bad (although it is still bad, for other reasons). It’s just an additional disadvantage of developing software on the Java platform.

That said, I do think some of the bad code out there is an effect of trying to work around flaws or missing features in the language. Libraries like Spring add an additional configuration layer that is practically like an additional language on top of the base language. Instead of coding Java, you’re coding Bean configurations and filter chains. Unfortunately all of that comes without useful debugging tools, so you’re left scratching your head why the system isn’t doing what you want. Log4J is another such complex configuration system that - unfortunately - customers are encouraged to change themselves which leads to confusing failure modes and insufficient user interfaces.

Well it’s always about finding a good balance isn’t it. Too many features like in C++ has negative consequences. Preferably you want something that lets you do all that you need to do, but not more. The trick to designing a good language is to let developers achieve as much as possible with as few features as possible, while keeping the code easy to reason about and understand.

This is obviously both subjective and highly dependent on what problem you are trying to solve, but I can’t think of any situation in my career where C# would not have been a better a choice than Java from a strictly technical perspective. It’s not just that the C# language is better, it’s that the Java ecosystem is founded on poor design choices that result in code bloat and implicit behavior that is hard to troubleshoot and secure. See e.g. Spring, which automatically picks up and loads any logging library that happens to be in the user’s path, even if that is an exploitable version of log4J. Java has become corrupted by enterprise architects. This satirical project demonstrates what I mean.

I say this as someone who is currently developing a FOSS Java library in my spare time, out of frustration with the Java code I had to endure at work.

Well if it was a human it wouldn’t be a peer, would it

That’s the drawback when “everything’s computer” in a Tesler

Someone made millions off of that Xeet.

I prefer to call them Xcrements

If the safeguards can be so easily removed, what’s the point of putting them there in the first place

Sure, as long as it works. Software has a tendency to stop working on newer OS:es or become subject to security exploits though.

That sounds good on paper, but the chances that someone else will pick up the ball if they abandon it, even if it’s open source, are very slim. If you care about keeping it alive then paying them is a more effective strategy than hoping for random volunteer work by internet strangers.

You, on the other hand, have good chances of being able to learn new tools. So I think the need for this security is exaggerated.

The IntelliJ products are not exactly “buy once” - if you want updated versions you need to keep paying periodically.

Not that I think that’s a bad thing necessarily - it doesn’t make sense to expect devs to continue working on something year after year when you’re not paying them for it.

4-hour planning? I wish. Try 16-hour planning.

And also, a meeting to plan for the planning meeting.

I use it many times a day for coding and solving technical issues. But I don’t recognize what the article talks about at all. There’s nothing affective about my conversations, other than the fact that using typical human expression (like “thank you”) seems to increase the chances of good responses. Which is not surprising since it better matches the patterns that you want to evoke in the training data.

That said, yeah of course I become “addicted” to it and have a harder time coping without it, because it’s part of my workflow just like Google. How well would anybody be able to do things in tech or even life in general without a search engine? ChatGPT is just a refinement of that.

echo “Xft.dpi: 210” >> ~/.Xresources

Sure, Teams is horrible - but at least it only affects people who use Teams. Whereas the abysmal UI and worthless templates in MS Word affects every person who has to read anything produced with MS Word too. It’s designed to make documents ugly and hard to read.

I think every day about the productivity lost because people use Microsoft Word and Microsoft PowerPoint. Maybe even multiple times a day.

Amen. There were actually three Teams clients at the same time (the Windows 11-bundled Teams “personal version”, Teams [for business] and Teams [the new version]). Not to mention they also have Skype for Business (which is actually Lync rebranded, which is Communicator rebranded) which is not interoperable at all with Teams even though it’s also an Office 365 conferencing app. And of course, Skype for Business is a completely different code base than Skype. Aaand they had Microsoft Kaizala which was basically the same use case but a completely different and incompatible implementation for countries with bad connectivity.

It’s a complete and utter shitshow and I can’t fathom why heads aren’t rolling at Microsoft. Makes me think of this email from Bill Gates back in the day. If he was CEO now he would be fuming.

Can you think of any other possible and more likely explanation for them being filtered, other than “the entire EU is being filtered by Google”?

If you wanted evidence that the entire EU is not being filtered, what would that evidence look like?

So email from one EU domain got filtered for you, and you concluded that every email from the EU is being filtered for everyone, on account of being from the EU? Am I understanding this right?

I agree. That response made me lose any trust I had and I actually went to check that I didn’t still have Zen browser installed from some earlier test run. He sounds like a script kiddie.