![](https://lemmy.megumin.org/pictrs/image/7daaa788-d23b-4daa-bc37-5944c3d542af.png)
![](https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/d3d059e3-fa3d-45af-ac93-ac894beba378.png)
You wish it was like that in the medical industry, but it absolutely is not
You wish it was like that in the medical industry, but it absolutely is not
NGL, this looks kinda terrible
And the only thing even worse than SCRUM is literally every other option
What this shows is how terrible raw JS is, when all of this crap is required to fix all of the edge cases and make things actually work the way it’s supposed to.
I definitely remember hearing that term in the 90’s.
If you’re using assembly, then you’ve already given up on the easy ways.
Vivaldi will never have it
Semantic versioning. Moving from v2.3 to v2.4 shouldn’t require major changes, but moving to v3.0 can.
And one of those flaws is thinking that the world needs to be full of shitty people just so it’s not “boring”
It’s the API that ALLOWED the misuse in the first place, so the developers are the ones to hold accountable.
No need, GUIs are better for most tasks.
Git was specifically CREATED to facilitate this exact mailing list workflow.
So you’re saying it’s about as robust as a typical Linux application then?
So what? Malicious extensions can do anything. Don’t run untrusted code on any computer you care about, ever. This is true for any IDE extension, any NPM package, any mod pack, etc.
Considering that the vast majority of comments on every thread (including this thread) are from users on different instances than OP, I’m going to answer: “literally everyone on Lemmy, constantly, and on every post”.
It sounds like what you meant to ask was more about interoperability between different platforms, but keep in mind that even if other platforms didn’t exist, Lemmy would not be what it is without ActivityPub federation.
If only mutable value semantics are allowed, then how can you represent an object graph with circular references (let’s say HTML DOM, for example) while still allowing modifying the objects?
Seems like this would be very difficult to work with in practice.
This is why .NET code compiles to platform-independent binaries that get JIT translated to machine code and optimized for the target CPU. Developers don’t need to do anything (the applications don’t even need to be re-compiled), they will just get conditionally optimized when appropriate.
If you have red hair, that might be the reason.
If you’re branching logic due to the existence or non-existence of a field rather than the value of a field (or treating undefined different from null), I’m going to say you’re the one doing something wrong, not the Java dev.
These two things SHOULD be treated the same by anybody in most cases, with the possible exception of rejecting the later due to schema mismatch (i.e. when a “name” field should never be defined, regardless of the value).