They’re different signals. The default handling is the same - terminate - but they’re triggered by different things and (if the process handles them) handled by separate handlers.

Garbage collection is analyzing the heap and figuring out what can be collected. Reference counting requires the code to increment or decrement a counter and frees memory when the counter hits zero. They’re fundamentally different approaches. Also reference counting isn’t necessarily automatic, Objective-C had manual reference counting since day one.

Ok… but that doesn’t answer my question. Where are you physically when you’re working on this that people are attacking exposed ports? I’m either at home or in the office, and in either case there’s an external firewall between me and any assholes who want to exploit exposed ports. Are your roommates or coworkers those kinds of assholes? Or are you sitting in a coffee shop or something?

Where are you working that your local machine is regularly exposed to malicious traffic?

I won't say copilot is completely useless for code. I will say that it's near useless for me. The kind of code that it's good at writing is the kind of code that I can write in my sleep. When I write a for-loop to iterate over an array and print it out (for example), it takes near zero brain power. I'm on autopilot, like driving to work. On the other hand, when I was trialing copilot I'd have to check each suggestion it made to verify that it wasn't giving me garbage. Verifying copilot's suggestions takes a lot more brain power than just writing it myself. And the difference in time is minimal. It doesn't take me much longer to write it myself than it does to validate copilot's work.

I was trying to make a point without starting a flamewar that was beside the point. Personally I’d never choose a dynamically typed language for a production system. That being said, Python and Ruby complain if you try to add an array, dict/hashmap, string, or number to another (of a different type) so they’re certainly more sane than JavaScript.

so you have to catch all exceptions then do extra work to tell what the specific situation is

That’s horrifying. That’s a solid reason to avoid Python like the plague.

• Scenario: I'm in the middle of writing a new feature.
• Boss, to me: "Shit broke. Go figure it out."
• Me, thinking: I'm in the middle of doing some complex work. If I commit/stash and close the open files, it will take a day for me to remember WTF I was doing.
• Me: "Oh look, worktrees! I can leave my workspace intact with all the files open, pending changes, test results, terminal output, everything! And just create a new worktree to checkout the production version and debug! I'm saved!"

Also setting up a worktree is really easy. git worktree add ../hotfix prod-branch && cd ../hotfix and get working. Though in reality it's cd ../hotfix && git checkout prod-branch because I've never needed more than one secondary worktree.

Do you have other regular meetings? I'm at a fully remote company and if we didn't have stand ups I probably barely ever talk to my coworkers via anything more than email and chat.

I absolutely prefer using an ORM for querying but I'm definitely never letting the ORM create the schema for me. I will always do that myself and generate the ORM definitions from SQL, and I will never use an ORM that doesn't have that as an option.

I wouldn't say it was a shit university, part of it is that I knew how to write code before I got there. But the CS program wasn't great. My entire point is, if someone has a CS degree from University X and you don't know if that program at that university is any good, the degree is meaningless. If the university's CS program isn't any good, you can't count on the degree meaning anything.

What does Go’s simplicity have to do with dependency injection?

In my experience, following Go's philosophy of simple solutions eliminates the need for complex solutions such as dependency injection.

How do you unit test your extremely complex projects if your business logic carries the additional responsibility of creating objects?

I write modular code that accepts interfaces so I can test the components I want to test. The vast majority of object creation happens at initialization time, not in the business logic. For the projects I've worked on, that would be true with or without DI - I don't see how that's relevant.

perhaps your “extremely complex projects” wouldn’t be so extremely complex if you practiced dependency injection?

When the CTO says, "Make it distributed and sharded," I do what I'm told, but that is an intrinsically complex problem. The complexity is in the overall behavior of the system. If you zoom in to the individual execution units, the business logic is relatively simple. But the behavior of the system as a whole is rather complex, and DI isn't going to change that.

Edit: I was interpreting "using DI" to mean using a DI framework such as Unity, and I would be happy to never need one of those frameworks ever again.