Or if the what is so cryptic and esoteric that it would require the reader a couple hours of research to understand it.

Also, I find it useful to summarise the what before code blocks if that can’t be summarised in a function name

Out management used to tell us, that even if head of department had committed to doing something some way, there’s no way or need to hold them accountable. It’s just that situation has changed, and nobody should bat an eye.

To be fair, they also did not pressure us much for the missed deadlines or missing features, because it was indeed the result of the situation described in the first paragraph

Well, this is shitty

I hope the reviewer did not also squash commits, and the next programmer would be able to at least dig what was there.

Doing changes after some rockstar dev implemented some really complex service, but left no clues as to what does what is so frustrating, and I can never be sure that I don’t break anything in a different place completely

And tuples should have the same types inside. And dictionary keys should have the same type as that dictionary’s values 😈

Not if the new UI consists of a single close button: “make whatever I want”

the guest tells you they want the fluffiest pancace possible, positioned vertically on the plate.

In fact they want four of them, each perpendicular to all othes

It’s just an old rant, some people can’t get over the fact systemd exists

This is not completely wrong, though

Also, I like how this problem had a really simple solution all along

There really isn’t anything we can do to prevent memory safety vulnerabilities from happening if the programmer doesn’t want to write their code in a robust manner.

Yeah, totally, it’s all those faulty programmers fault. They should’ve written good programmes instead of the bad ones, but they just refuse to listen

Underspecified schema is indeed a problem, but I find it too common to just shrug it off

Also, you’re very right that just using strings will not improve the situation 🤝

Well, one of the most widely used that allows to do low-level stuff. The most widely used one is by far JavaScript but good luck making an OS or a device driver with it

I disagree a bit in that the schema often doesn’t specify limits and operates in JSON standard’s terms, it will say that you should get/send a number, but will not usually say at what point will it break.

This is the opposite of what C language does, being so specific that it is not even turing complete (in a theoretical sense, it is practically)

I am not sure what could be the example, my point was that the spec and the RFC are very abstract and never mention any limitations on the number content. Of course the implementations in the language will be more limited than that, and if limitations are different, it will create dissimilar experience for the user, like this: Why does JSON.parse corrupt large numbers and how to solve this

The point is that everything is expressable as JSON numbers, it’s when those numbers are read by JS there’s an issue

No problem with strings in JSON, until some smart developer you get JSONs from decides to interchangeably use String and number, and maybe a boolean (but only false) to show that the value is not set, and of course null for a missing value that was supposed to be optional all along but go figure that it was

Well, we don’t, but every electonic tables software out in the wild on the other hand…

I do, but I also don’t think that’s a silver bullet, unfortunately. There’s convenience in code generation and compatibility, at least

Well, Jackson before 2.9 did not differentiate, and although this was more than five years ago now, this is somewhat of a counter example

Also, you sound like serializers are not made by developers

Except, if you use any library for deserialization of JSONs there is a chance that it will not distinguish between null and absent, and that will be absolutely standard compliant. This is also an issue with protobuf that inserts default values for plain types and enums. Those standards are just not fit too well for patching

This is the art level of fuckery, making it this bad was definitely harder than making it okay