If the squash merge is too big to review then that change should have been broken up into multiple separate changes. Regardless whether you’re using pull requests or some equivalent or directly merging feature branches, if “one unit of work” is too much to review when squashed, then your unit of work is too big and needs to be split up. A unit of work should always be reviewable as a whole.

I constantly rebase my feature branches regardless of how many commits there are and whether I’ve pushed any of them. So long as no one else has checked out my branch it’s perfectly safe. Personally I find rebase merge conflicts far easier to work with. Traditional merge conflicts are “Here’s someone else’s changes, figure out how to merge them into your feature branch.” Rebase merge conflicts are “The main branch has changed since you made your changes. Re-apply your changes to the new base.” For me/my brain, the latter is so much easier. The only time I ever run into problems is when there are merges in the history I’m rebasing. Which I avoid by never merging into my feature branches, only rebasing.

And if it goes wrong, just git rebase —abort. Or if you already completed the rebase, git reset —hard origin/YOUR-BRANCH. Or if you majorly fucked up, use git reflog to find a good commit and reset to that. Zero risk if you know what you’re doing.

Their stated justification is that people would abuse comments, using them to carry semantic or syntactic information. That’s a shit justification IMO.

As far as the additional complexity that comments bring, I understand that from a technical perspective but from an engineering-for-real-humans-in-the-real-world perspective that’s the kind of thing you just have to deal with if you want to design a good format.

Anything can be abused. That’s not a legitimate reason to take away perfectly reasonable features. Looking at you, Java (unsigned integers).

If you have a solid idea of your competence, GitLab uses a calculator for salary and they make it public. If you don’t have a solid idea, ask someone who’s worked with you and who will be honest.

BTW someone said mid-level in SF is $200k, so my number may be way out of date.

True, but if you read the article the point is clearly not about source code vs non-source configuration. There's an implicit assumption that source code is something the developer will be modifying as time goes on, but the real point is, "Don't make users merge changes."

Programming languages are tools. I couldn't care less about learning a new tool just for the sake of learning. My interest in learning tools is exclusively practical - if they help me do my work better.

I find functional languages interesting, but that's because I find the underlying theory interesting and worth learning for its own sake, not because I actually care about the specific language it's written in. Even then these days I'd rather learn about woodworking (which is currently my main hobby) than a programming paradigm I'm probably never going to use.

Why? I see no reason to go through the hassle of learning yet another language when Go serves my purposes perfectly and I'm happy with it.

Why? I see no reason to go through the hassle of learning yet another language when Go serves my purposes perfectly and I'm happy with it.

I’m a cishet white dude so I experience effectively zero discrimination directed at me, but I am on the spectrum.

I guess basically everyone I regularly interact with either is also on the spectrum or has intense interests regardless, or is used to people like that. Though TBF I have learned to not get intense if I’m in public talking to random strangers. But if someone asks me a question like, “how do computers work”, I will answer at great length.

Do you recall what the presentation was called? I built a pipelined packet processing system (for debugging packets sent over an RF channel) which sounds like a fairly representative example of what you're talking about, but it's not obvious to me how to naturally extend that to other types of projects.

Java is the top, C# is the bottom. The Java language designers consider unsigned integers harmful (and this). They're basically saying "You could hurt yourself with this so we're taking it away." I find that patronizing and disrespectful. On the other hand C# and Go tell you, "Yo bro, doing pointer math and direct memory manipulation is not safe, but I'm not gonna stop you."