Cloudflare projecting its dominating power onto lemmy?

I'm sorry, this assertion is meaningless scaremongering. What exactly is "projecting it's dominating power" supposed to mean?

And by the way, may I point out that site maintainers purposely adopted Cloudflare to serve specific purposes?

So this is more about preventing future problems and not solving problems that exist.

The question remains unanswered: which problems, hypothetically or otherwise, would this migration solve?

(...) you can see what’s going on with the rest of the company, too.

That's a huge security problem.

Edit for those who are down voting this post, please explain why you believe that granting anyone in the organization full access to all the projects used across all organizations does not represent a security problem.

The problem isn’t a principle of a computer science, but one of just safety.

I think you missed the point entirely.

You can focus all you want in artificial Ivory tower scenarios, such as a hypothetical ability to rewrite everything from scratch with the latest and greatest tech stacks. Back in the real world, that is a practical impossibility in virtually all scenarios, and a renowned project killer.

In addition, the point stressed in the article is that you can add memory safety features even to C programs.

Also, who said this is a principle of computer science?

Anyone who devotes any resource learning software engineering.

Here's a somewhat popular essay in the subject:

https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/04/06/things-you-should-never-do-part-i/

Even following the guidelines, modern C++ is just a huge pile of half-finished ideas.

You're making it pretty clear that you are completely oblivious to what C++ is, what are the differences between C++ versions, and what are the real world issues solved by each new version.

I would ask you to clarify your persona clams by providing a concrete example to back each of your statements, but I know you have none.

Oh, okay. I’ve never encountered a situation where I needed that bug fixed for the task but it shouldn’t be fixed as part of the task;

So you never stumbled upon bugs while doing work. That's ok, but others do. Those who stumble upon bugs see the value of being able to sort out local commits with little to no effort.

Also, some teams do care about building their work on atomic commits, because they understand the problems caused by mixing up unrelated work on the same PR, specially when auditing changes to track where a regression was introduced. You might feel it's ok to post a PR that does multiple things like bumping up a package version, linting unrelated code, fixing an issue, and post comments on an unrelated package, but others know those are four separate PRs and should be pushed as four separate PRs.

if they’re touching the same functionality like that I really don’t see the need for two PRs.

That's ok, not everyone works with QA teams. Once you grow over a scale where you have people whose job is to ensure a bug is fixed following specific end to end tests and detect where a regression was introduced, you'll understand the value of having tests that verify if a bug is fixed, and only afterwards proceed with changing the user-facing behavior. For those with free-for-all commits where "fixes bug" and "update" show up multiple times in their commit history, paying attention to how a commit history is put together is hardly a concern.

And those who don’t immediately insult

Pointing out someone's claim that they don't care about processes when it's the critical aspect of any professional work is hardly what I'd call an insult.

Just go ahead and say you don't use a tool and thus you don't feel the need to learn it. Claiming that a tool's basic functionality is "a solution in search for a problem" is as good as announcing your obliviousness,and that you're discussing stuff you hardly know anything about.

See, I don't think you understood the example. The commits built upon each other (bugs are fixed while you work on the task, and to work on your task you need the bugs to be fixed) and reordering commits not only take no time at al but they are also the very last thing you do and you have to do the just once.

Not sure exactly what you mean, could you elaborate or rephrase?

There is nothing to rephrase. I asked what problem do you think that undefined behavior poses. That's pretty cut-and-dry. Either you think undefined behavior poses a problem, and you can substantiate your concerns, or you don't and talking about undefined behavior being a concern is a mute point.

My advice: use descriptive variable names.

The article is really not about naming conventions.

This is certainly a way to dismiss all other programming paradigms, I suppose.

My comment has nothing to do with paradigms.

In fact, your strawman is proven to be false by the fact that there is no mainstream tech stack for the web which is not object oriented and provides a request pipeline that uses inversion of control for developers to pass their event handlers. They all reimplement the exact same solution and follow the exact same pattern to handle requests.

Rust's borrow checker is a bad example. There are already a few projects that target C++ and support both runtime and compile-time checks, not to mention static code analysis tools that can be added to any project.