archived stringclasses 2
values | author stringlengths 3 20 | author_fullname stringlengths 4 12 ⌀ | body stringlengths 0 22.5k | comment_type stringclasses 1
value | controversiality stringclasses 2
values | created_utc stringlengths 10 10 | edited stringlengths 4 12 | gilded stringclasses 7
values | id stringlengths 1 7 | link_id stringlengths 7 10 | locked stringclasses 2
values | name stringlengths 4 10 ⌀ | parent_id stringlengths 5 10 | permalink stringlengths 41 91 ⌀ | retrieved_on stringlengths 10 10 ⌀ | score stringlengths 1 4 | subreddit_id stringclasses 1
value | subreddit_name_prefixed stringclasses 1
value | subreddit_type stringclasses 1
value | total_awards_received stringclasses 19
values |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
True | [deleted] | null | <rant>
There are a number of issues with JavaScript. For one, it wasn't very well designed from the start. Brendan Eich himself stated it was designed and implemented in a rush (I believe in two weeks). The design choices made also lead me to believe that Eich had little experience with compiler/language design at the time. So we have a language that doesn't quite fit together as nicely as it could. A language with both null and undefined values (but undefined is mutable), where '2' + '2' === '22' but '2' * '2' === 4, where semicolons are optional (and parentheses would be too if Brendan had his way).
The second issue is that they're unwilling to break backward compatibility. They are mostly unwilling to make even minor changes that would fix the many weird semantic quirks of the language. I think Python 3.0 had the right approach. You make a new version of the language. You make the changes you have to make, and you provide scripts to try and automatically port legacy code. You don't force people to switch to the new version, but if they do, they can use your scripts to convert/check their code. Screw the idea that "OMG, PEOPLE MIGHT HAVE TO CHANGE 20 LINES OF THEIR CODE!" is so unthinkable.
The last issue, in my opinion, is that ES.next is mostly adding more fluff to JavaScript. They're adding a ton of syntactic sugar. A ton of features that some people might find fashionable and cool, but that are largely redundant. Now, I'm not saying all the new features are redundant (modules are a welcome addition), but some definitely are (a pseudo-class syntax, but it won't behave as you would expect, oh thanks). I think these new features are mostly being added to keep JS on top of the current fads. The goal is to attract more new developers, the kind that will go "oh, shiny new features!" and try JavaScript.
They know JS is definitely threatened by other languages. They know Google (and many others) are staring right at them, and thinking "The web needs something better than JS+HTML+CSS+DOM+...+Python/Ruby/PHP, something that's not a big fat kludge".
</rant> | null | 0 | 1315850403 | True | 0 | c2jc1r4 | t3_kcwx2 | null | t1_c2jc1r4 | t1_c2j9zfe | null | 1427590817 | 36 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | mtVessel | null | There is no unit test to discover whether you're an asshole or not. | null | 0 | 1315850454 | False | 0 | c2jc210 | t3_kczbt | null | t1_c2jc210 | t1_c2jatda | null | 1427590819 | 22 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | anttirt | null | > Evolving languages can lead to the removal of warts not just the accumulation of warts.
Not if you want to remain backward-compatible.
> The language Oberon was born out of the ambition to simplify language to the essentials. The result turned out to be a considerably more powerful and more elegant language than its predecessors The defining report of Pascal required 30 pages, that of Modula grew to 45 pages, Oberon's could do with 16.
That's because *nobody uses these languages*, so they could afford to change the language in ways that weren't backward-compatible. | null | 0 | 1315850527 | False | 0 | c2jc2fd | t3_kcwx2 | null | t1_c2jc2fd | t1_c2jau6w | null | 1427590829 | 8 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | greendude | null | Now I disagree with this methodology of distribution, but none the less Google has a right to it:
As opposed to GPL, under Apache, Google is not required to publish the binaries and the source of Android at the same time. So perhaps you can say technically say that version 3.0 of Android is not open source yet; but because you do have the right to adopt and modify the source of 2.3-- versions of the software, the project is still open source.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok, now I look up and see you specifically said "Android 3.0 ain't open source". So you're right, I was speaking more about AOSP on the whole.
*bows away shamefully* | null | 0 | 1315850559 | False | 0 | c2jc2kp | t3_kawp5 | null | t1_c2jc2kp | t1_c2jbehr | null | 1427590830 | 2 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | Nuli | null | >However, to be fair to him, he does appear to be about 20 years old. Most developers are insufferable shits at that age.
At that age I'd be curious what he considers "large projects" to be. From the sound of this one it was almost trivially small if it only takes eight hours to refactor it. | null | 0 | 1315850561 | False | 0 | c2jc2l6 | t3_kczbt | null | t1_c2jc2l6 | t1_c2jbk36 | null | 1427590830 | 9 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | MarshallBanana | null | As I said: adding a language to something that didn't use to be dynamic is a far more overwhelming change. | null | 0 | 1315850589 | False | 0 | c2jc2qv | t3_kcwx2 | null | t1_c2jc2qv | t1_c2jbqv4 | null | 1427590831 | 2 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | [deleted] | null | TIL! Did Firefox's ActiveX work in Mac OS and Linux? That would make it comparable to what Google are doing right now. | null | 0 | 1315850637 | False | 0 | c2jc2zj | t3_kawp5 | null | t1_c2jc2zj | t1_c2j7ire | null | 1427590835 | 1 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | rizla7 | null | oh you mean cloud-computing-fail? lol... no sane person uses cloud-based apps. several reasons: downtime (isp, server), data security/integrity, latency/throughput, data-mining, extensibility/scalability, integration... shit, i could go on for days. cloud computing is a fad that will fade away. | null | 0 | 1315850809 | False | 0 | c2jc3vi | t3_kcwx2 | null | t1_c2jc3vi | t1_c2jbhzj | null | 1427590844 | -6 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | anttirt | null | > The second issue is that they're unwilling to break backward compatibility.
That was exactly my point. There are probably tens of millions of lines of fragile javascript code out there that businesses depend on that have *no maintainer whatsoever.* It's a shitty state of affairs but it's also reality. If javascript is going to break backward compatibility then you might as well create a new language from scratch. | null | 0 | 1315850819 | False | 0 | c2jc3xa | t3_kcwx2 | null | t1_c2jc3xa | t1_c2jc1r4 | null | 1427590844 | 18 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | UnoriginalGuy | null | Yes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowers_v._Baystate_Technologies | null | 0 | 1315850887 | False | 0 | c2jc4ax | t3_kctmn | null | t1_c2jc4ax | t1_c2jbz5u | null | 1427590848 | 1 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | [deleted] | null | [deleted] | null | 0 | 1315850991 | False | 0 | c2jc4uv | t3_kczbt | null | t1_c2jc4uv | t1_c2j9q9u | null | 1427590860 | 6 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | drysart | null | No, it was Windows-only (since that was the only platform that the WMP ActiveX control existed on; and also since ActiveX was basically just a set of interface contracts built on top on COM, and COM has no direct sibling on Mac OS or Linux). | null | 0 | 1315851010 | False | 0 | c2jc4yj | t3_kawp5 | null | t1_c2jc4yj | t1_c2jc2zj | null | 1427590853 | 2 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | NoMoreNicksLeft | null | Foreign data wrappers? Hot damn. | null | 0 | 1315851121 | False | 0 | c2jc5j9 | t3_kd0x9 | null | t1_c2jc5j9 | t3_kd0x9 | null | 1427590861 | 10 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | ErstwhileRockstar | null | > Evolving languages can lead to the removal of warts not just the accumulation of warts.
The key point is language versioning. AFAIK, no current programming language*) supports different versions of the language to be used in parallel (which is necessary for backward compatibility). Most people wrongly think that a new version of the language has to be a superset of the current (at the most with some features 'deprecated'). Any new language must support versioning (or it is flawed).
*) except XML | null | 0 | 1315851384 | False | 0 | c2jc6y7 | t3_kcwx2 | null | t1_c2jc6y7 | t1_c2jau6w | null | 1427590876 | 2 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | nullsucks | null | > **I forgot an else statement when refactoring my colleague’s code; she had to stay up until 5am debugging it.** She no longer understood what was originally hers. **I am now convinced that nothing is more demotivating than working with code you don’t understand, especially when it was your own.** It can’t get much worse for me though, right?
I can think of something more demotivating: working with an asshole who rewrites my code, fucks it up, and then leaves it for me to debug. | null | 0 | 1315851419 | True | 0 | c2jc748 | t3_kczbt | null | t1_c2jc748 | t3_kczbt | null | 1427590878 | 95 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | Cyrius | null | >>>Larry Elisson had a tamper tantrum when MS created dotnet and released it free of charge, no royalties.
>>Uhhh.... Java was created by Sun Microsystems over a decade before Oracle bought them, and has been free ever since it was first released.
>a little history: http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2002/03/21/185851/Sun-sues-Microsoft-from-inside-a-glass-house.htm
>as for cost: jre is free to the user, but the developer has to license jdk. or at least that is the way it was when larry sued them.
It's almost amusing how you've made this into the personal vendetta of someone *at the wrong company.* The CEO of Sun Microsystems was Scott McNealy, not Larry Ellison. | null | 0 | 1315851438 | False | 0 | c2jc777 | t3_kcwx2 | null | t1_c2jc777 | t1_c2jaszz | null | 1427590879 | 5 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | rizla7 | null | that was the whole point, sherlock. it filled a need, there is no need to change JS. | null | 0 | 1315851447 | False | 0 | c2jc78j | t3_kcwx2 | null | t1_c2jc78j | t1_c2jaqox | null | 1427590879 | -3 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | rich97 | null | > i've backed up literally everything i've said in this thread with link
Oh really? So nothing like when you pulled the assertion that Dart's goal is to replace the entire .NET platform directly from your ass? | null | 0 | 1315851466 | False | 0 | c2jc7bw | t3_kcwx2 | null | t1_c2jc7bw | t1_c2jbwkv | null | 1427590879 | 3 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | [deleted] | null | They've already stated that ES.next will be opt-in, however. You'll need to tell the browser/VM you want to use it for specific pieces of code. It shouldn't be the case that new browsers will just run your old JS code against the new standard one day. This makes maintaining backwards compatibility a little moot, in my opinion. Especially considering that they are willing to break it in some places anyways (no more global object). | null | 0 | 1315851544 | False | 0 | c2jc7p1 | t3_kcwx2 | null | t1_c2jc7p1 | t1_c2jc3xa | null | 1427590884 | 3 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | nascent | null | There was a post about LDC compatible with something like 2.052. But both LDC and GDC are lacking in the number of users to really verify when they are not up-to-date. | null | 0 | 1315851582 | False | 0 | c2jc7vw | t3_kaxjq | null | t1_c2jc7vw | t1_c2j4z70 | null | 1427590888 | 2 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | systay | null | When I was in this situation last time, there was no support for this. You could download something from some guys blog, and that claimed to make it possible, but I never tried it. | null | 0 | 1315851667 | False | 0 | c2jc8bn | t3_kc5di | null | t1_c2jc8bn | t1_c2javqp | null | 1427590893 | 1 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | funkah | null | That was my reaction too. VSS was like that, but I'm dumbfounded that they would repeat that design mistake. Someone else said you can work offline with TFS, I sure hope so. | null | 0 | 1315851740 | False | 0 | c2jc8ot | t3_kc5di | null | t1_c2jc8ot | t1_c2jbwpw | null | 1427590899 | 2 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | redditnoob | null | > I think Python 3.0 had the right approach.
Wait, _that_ is your example of how to make an evolutionary change to a language that people will actually adopt? | null | 0 | 1315851783 | False | 0 | c2jc8wi | t3_kcwx2 | null | t1_c2jc8wi | t1_c2jc1r4 | null | 1427590901 | 10 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | olsner | null | Two days per sprint (= every 2 weeks?) maintaining SVN and a build system? Sounds to me like you were just doing it wrong... | null | 0 | 1315851786 | False | 0 | c2jc8xe | t3_kc5di | null | t1_c2jc8xe | t1_c2j9hhx | null | 1427590901 | 7 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | systay | null | We try to keep our build in the green. We have a, at times, fairly busy commit line, and our build pipe line takes almost two hours. The commit that failed the build could be a lot of commits back. With git, we just undo do a single commit in history, and we're back to green again.
Yes, it's something I do now and again. | null | 0 | 1315851851 | False | 0 | c2jc976 | t3_kc5di | null | t1_c2jc976 | t1_c2jb93g | null | 1427590905 | 1 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | sedaak | null | There are so many things they could have. Even saying that "it is time" like Linus is acceptable. Pretending that v1.8 is a decimal number is just absurd.... | null | 0 | 1315851915 | False | 0 | c2jc9hr | t3_kd5f6 | null | t1_c2jc9hr | t1_c2jbjq7 | null | 1427590908 | 10 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | mwootendev | null | Exactly, => does look like an assignment, which this is not. I think the thin arrow better differentiates the lambda from the assignment. Besides, it already works great for Groovy. | null | 0 | 1315851969 | False | 0 | c2jc9rl | t3_k9h3s | null | t1_c2jc9rl | t1_c2ij2ik | null | 1427590912 | 1 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | drysart | null | > ActiveX was a prime example. It relied on COM and was incredibly difficult to make an emulator for. So, any page that relied on ActiveX would not run in Netscape.
That's simply not true. ActiveX wouldn't run in Netscape because Netscape's browser *was absolute shit* and didn't have anything approaching a real layout system or document object model. This was the codebase that they completely threw out (at great risk) rather than try to salvage when they open-sourced.
As for implementing an ActiveX host, it's all very fully documented; and all very easy to understand because it's just a set of interface contracts built on COM. And COM itself is very easy to understand as well, it's just that there's *a lot* to learn. (In fact, it's rather telling that when Mozilla threw out the legacy Netscape codebase, they reinvented COM to be cross-platform as XPCOM to use as the foundation of their new codebase.)
It's not, and never was obfuscated. Other vendors like Borland had no trouble implementing ActiveX hosts. It's just that Netscape was so mired in technical debt they were paralyzed by it. | null | 0 | 1315852008 | True | 0 | c2jc9yi | t3_kc9ai | null | t1_c2jc9yi | t1_c2j5t0m | null | 1427590923 | 2 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | rizla7 | null | oh you mean like dotnet framework? :p doh... we have a winner! | null | 0 | 1315852098 | False | 0 | c2jcae6 | t3_kcwx2 | null | t1_c2jcae6 | t1_c2jam1a | null | 1427590921 | -5 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | [deleted] | null | Ah, so really not at all comparable. | null | 0 | 1315852115 | False | 0 | c2jcagz | t3_kawp5 | null | t1_c2jcagz | t1_c2jc4yj | null | 1427590921 | 1 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | [deleted] | null | The biggest problem with the SWGEMU is that you have all these awesome coders making all these awesome fixes, but you log in and the low level game is so beyond fucked up that its next to impossible to start a new character from scratch.
So why the fuck even try and play it.
There's no documentation, there's nothing. | null | 0 | 1315852366 | False | 0 | c2jcbt1 | t3_kctmn | null | t1_c2jcbt1 | t3_kctmn | null | 1427590939 | 1 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | Penhorse | null | Very very clear and helpful! | null | 0 | 1315852417 | False | 0 | c2jcc3p | t3_kd88g | null | t1_c2jcc3p | t3_kd88g | null | 1427590944 | 6 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | tau-lepton | null | Sweet, although the PostGIS functions could also be used (iirc). | null | 0 | 1315852503 | False | 0 | c2jcck9 | t3_kd0x9 | null | t1_c2jcck9 | t1_c2jb1ry | null | 1427590948 | 3 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | looneysquash | null | But why do you want to group by id? Isn't the id already unique? What does this group by accomplish? | null | 0 | 1315852527 | False | 0 | c2jccoz | t3_kd0x9 | null | t1_c2jccoz | t1_c2jbwod | null | 1427590950 | 2 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | kolm | null | Is that blip in 2009 when Ken Thompson joined? | null | 0 | 1315852602 | False | 0 | c2jcd37 | t3_kcwx2 | null | t1_c2jcd37 | t1_c2jb3uh | null | 1427590955 | 6 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | codekiller | null | ...and then try the same with MS Word... | null | 0 | 1315852609 | False | 0 | c2jcd4n | t3_kbz68 | null | t1_c2jcd4n | t1_c2j9c25 | null | 1427590963 | 1 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | impatient | null | > This, of course, assumes that you have smart colleagues.
I hate even broaching this topic. It reeks of arrogance.
I don't think you can even think of it this way(or maybe I need to). If you really don't have smart people and you rewrite their code, they won't grok it. You've just volunteered to maintain it, shrinking their responsibilities and room to grow. I fall into this trap at crunch time(not that they are stupid, just I'm the only one 'dumb' enough to work insane hours when needed).
We're in a situation where we do half consulting/half dev. We need everyone to know large portions of the code bases(all of the different code bases < 30k lines each), so they can hop in, if someone is onsite doing consulting. It doesn't happen. It always falls on me. I try to give them time. We discuss what each part does. They fiddle with it. They hard code paths. They access optional elements in xml without a check for existence first... and worst of all, they do all of this slowly(and claim they are done well before they are). I end up going into cowboyish mode(write "necessary" tests) to get it done.
/depressed
Edit: And yeah. I think I took that a bit out of context because I wanted to rant and I fail at knowing amount of work to expect.
| null | 0 | 1315852724 | True | 0 | c2jcdqq | t3_kczbt | null | t1_c2jcdqq | t3_kczbt | null | 1427590973 | 10 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | frezik | null | It's the inherent problem of design-by-committee. Too many individual actors involved, many of whom are direct competitors, and even those who aren't will always have their pet use cases and specialties in mind.
Good design comes out of one or two experts working together. That's how C worked in the first place. But it's almost inevitable that a successful standard will be widely adapted. Any subsequent evolution will necessarily have to include a wide range of adapters, leading to a design-by-committee. It happened to C++ and it's happening to HTML5 right now.
Might as well yell at the sky for being too cloudy. | null | 0 | 1315852748 | False | 0 | c2jcduj | t3_kcwx2 | null | t1_c2jcduj | t1_c2jbnxd | null | 1427590966 | 3 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | sebzim4500 | null | Either that or Google's new OS, windows | null | 0 | 1315852845 | False | 0 | c2jceby | t3_kawp5 | null | t1_c2jceby | t1_c2iuvl4 | null | 1428194366 | 2 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | nickdangler | null | That 'with... delete... insert' looks great for processing staging tables. Have a where clause on the delete that does all of the necessary validation. Run the query. Whatever is left in foo needs to be massaged by an end user. | null | 0 | 1315852848 | False | 0 | c2jcecm | t3_kd0x9 | null | t1_c2jcecm | t1_c2jafo4 | null | 1428194367 | 6 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | gregmchapman | null | Thanks a lot. | null | 0 | 1315852849 | False | 0 | c2jcecw | t3_g6jw5 | null | t1_c2jcecw | t1_c2j9xbo | null | 1428194367 | 1 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | rich97 | null | > no sane person uses cloud-based apps
Google Apps. Insanely useful for day-to-day collaboration. Millions of customers globally.
Also you're forgetting about all of the "apps" what are already a part of websites. e.g. Internet Banking, online photo storage and sharing, blogs, news aggregation, etc.
> downtime
Becoming less of a problem, internet connectivity and speed are on the rise across the board. HTML5 local storage allows you to access your data offline and Google Chrome allows you to "install" web-based applications.
> data security
Again a problem with the service provider or implementation, not the technology. HTTPS is secure enough, depending on the browser you use.
> data integrity
Every business in the world who aren't comprised entirely of idiots do very frequent distributed backups, data isn't any less prone to corruption on your local machine than it is on a server.
> latency/throughput
Again. Higher speeds and more connectivity = less problem.
> data-mining
How is this an inherent problem with cloud computing? Surely that is a problem with the service providers?
> integration
Are you seriously suggesting that it's difficult to get online applications to integrate with each other? [REST.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representational_state_transfer)
> extensibility/scalability
http://www.niallkennedy.com/blog/2008/01/google-mapreduce-stats.html - Looks pretty scaleable to me. | null | 0 | 1315852908 | False | 0 | c2jceo7 | t3_kcwx2 | null | t1_c2jceo7 | t1_c2jc3vi | null | 1427590995 | 1 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | merlinm | null | that's the whole point: since the id is unique, the other group by columns don't need to be written out. for a more useful example, [see here](http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/What%27s_new_in_PostgreSQL_9.1#SQL_and_PL.2FPgSQL_features) | null | 0 | 1315853012 | False | 0 | c2jcf7a | t3_kd0x9 | null | t1_c2jcf7a | t1_c2jccoz | null | 1427590995 | 7 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | treo | null | I'd swear I have seen a blog post somewhere, where it was used to access mysql. But I just can't find it anymore. | null | 0 | 1315853104 | False | 0 | c2jcfl2 | t3_kd0x9 | null | t1_c2jcfl2 | t1_c2jc5j9 | null | 1427590998 | 3 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | Moridin | null | These really are fantastic, ill be sorry when they're finished.
M | null | 0 | 1315853139 | False | 0 | c2jcfsn | t3_kd88g | null | t1_c2jcfsn | t3_kd88g | null | 1427591000 | 4 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | SuperGrade | null | > If you really don't have smart people and you rewrite their code, they won't grok it.
The topic interests me.
Is the "They won't grok it":
1. Inherent to writing anyone else's code?
2. Inherent to a superior rewriting an inferior's code?
3. Inherent to any rewrite of code originally written by a "nonsmart"?
4. "They won't grok it" - do you use or command language constructs or techniques that they don't have in their toolbox?
| null | 0 | 1315853146 | False | 0 | c2jcfv9 | t3_kczbt | null | t1_c2jcfv9 | t1_c2jcdqq | null | 1427591001 | 2 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | merlinm | null | postgres is more popular with enterprise backend style programming than it is with kit applications. this is mainly due to historical reasons, especially being late to fully support windows. mysql's syntax is so 'out there' wrt the way sql is supposed to work I can only hope applications users pressure the devs to knock it off -- postgres is incredibly rich and a much better platform to develop against generally. | null | 0 | 1315853254 | False | 0 | c2jcgfz | t3_kd0x9 | null | t1_c2jcgfz | t1_c2jbqos | null | 1427591006 | 26 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | nascent | null | Would you stop going in circles.
Neither Tango or Phobos need to work out which license should be used. Both must choose a license that is best for their developers and end-users as they see fit. It is the Developers job to license their code under what they wish for their end-users. Anything else is pointless bickering. | null | 0 | 1315853263 | False | 0 | c2jcghw | t3_kaxjq | null | t1_c2jcghw | t1_c2j50ow | null | 1427591006 | 4 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | [deleted] | null | Whoa, don't drive your argument off a cliff.
Google sees a possibility of high reward with Dash, but its success is not guaranteed. They themselves describe it as "high risk/high reward".
[markmail.org/message/uro3jtoitlmq6x7t](http://markmail.org/message/uro3jtoitlmq6x7t)
Remember, all this discussion is driven by the *success* of JavaScript - Gmail, Google Maps, jQuery, what have you. Dash not only has to be faster, it has to so much faster and so much easier to code in and so much better for delivering applications that it compels people to rewrite their codebases. Present day support of massive codebases in Fortran and Cobol bespeak of the difficulty of this.
Also, give the JIT guys a break, the pressure is off as soon as they meet or exceed strictly-typed compiled languages, which you see more and more. And, it is easy to sneeze at a factor of 2 boost that isn't an overall boost, except when your particular application realizes that benefit in a tight critical loop. The JIT teams are quite strategic about what they work on: nobody can seriously argue they are targeting insignificant micro cases - their performance test suites are closely aligned with popular applications.
I said "the JavaScript JIT researchers are just warming up" in light of projects like Python's PyPy project, where arbitrarily large blocks of high level dynamic code gets replaced with optimized machine code using information made available to the JIT. Unless I missed it, I haven't seen you argue anything fatal to that view. This is the most interesting issue, to me, and I am keen to learn of any concrete difficulty that would make that goal unrealizable in the real world.
| null | 0 | 1315853339 | False | 0 | c2jcgv0 | t3_kc9ai | null | t1_c2jcgv0 | t1_c2jbzpa | null | 1427591009 | 1 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | mrkite77 | null | > Second, that effectively promotes creation of private turfs, not a good thing in a team effort.
I disagree.. both in programming and in any team sport... the whole purpose of a team effort is to divide a problem down into manageable parts, whether it's a single function, or a zoned defense. | null | 0 | 1315853351 | False | 0 | c2jcgy3 | t3_kczbt | null | t1_c2jcgy3 | t1_c2j9q9u | null | 1427591009 | 2 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | NoMoreNicksLeft | null | That would be a beautiful thing. Truly beautiful. As long as Mysql doesn't try to sneak back through the connection and change all of PG's tables to myisam. | null | 0 | 1315853369 | False | 0 | c2jch17 | t3_kd0x9 | null | t1_c2jch17 | t1_c2jcfl2 | null | 1427591010 | 5 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | [deleted] | null | [deleted] | null | 0 | 1315853414 | 1368989825 | 0 | c2jcha5 | t3_kawp5 | null | t1_c2jcha5 | t1_c2j3lt4 | null | 1427591016 | 0 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | rmxz | null | Postgis is indeed one of the main use-cases for the new KNN indexing feature:
http://trac.osgeo.org/postgis/ticket/701
Looks like use of KNN will be supported in postgis 2.0 (thanks to funding by [these guys](http://vizzuality.com/)):
http://www.postgis.org/pipermail/postgis-devel/2011-June/013931.html
| null | 0 | 1315853568 | False | 0 | c2jci2a | t3_kd0x9 | null | t1_c2jci2a | t1_c2jcck9 | null | 1427591021 | 7 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | wobblebonk | null | M59? | null | 0 | 1315853616 | False | 0 | c2jci8c | t3_kctmn | null | t1_c2jci8c | t3_kctmn | null | 1427591023 | 1 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | novacoder | null | I wonder how many critical security patches got lopped off due to a rounding error? | null | 0 | 1315853668 | False | 0 | c2jcijq | t3_kd5f6 | null | t1_c2jcijq | t1_c2jbjq7 | null | 1427591027 | 2 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | marssaxman | null | "considering that it was a rush job", yes... but why is that an argument for continuing to build the entire web on top of a 10-day rush job hack language?
Javascript *is* that bad compared to almost anything else. | null | 0 | 1315853679 | False | 0 | c2jcinw | t3_kcwx2 | null | t1_c2jcinw | t1_c2jb2up | null | 1427591028 | 5 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | trezor2 | null | I do understand it, seemingly unlike most people on reddit, and that is why I am making the comparison.
Google doing something in secret for their own browsers and websites and then making it "standard" by putting it on the open web, with some may-be-working solution for a *subset* of the functionality for "other browsers"... That does smell a lot like "extending", and not exactly a standards-friendly way of doing it.
In fact it smells like Microsoft and MSIE all over again.
But lets entertain the notion that your comment has merits. Please do tell what part do I not understand. | null | 0 | 1315853802 | False | 0 | c2jcjbt | t3_kawp5 | null | t1_c2jcjbt | t1_c2jcha5 | null | 1427591038 | -1 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | bilygates | null | You're right, my example isn't that clear. How about this one:
SELECT users.id, users.username, users.email, users.etc
FROM photos
JOIN users ON (users.id = photos.user_id)
GROUP BY users.id
(Select all users who have photos. A user can have multiple photos.) | null | 0 | 1315853854 | False | 0 | c2jcjn7 | t3_kd0x9 | null | t1_c2jcjn7 | t1_c2jccoz | null | 1427591043 | 10 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | rizla7 | null | it's not a library. it is a framework based on a CLI. and of course i know that.... wtf... seriously.... i was speaking of asp.net specifically in the first statement. | null | 0 | 1315853893 | False | 0 | c2jcjuw | t3_kcwx2 | null | t1_c2jcjuw | t1_c2jaseg | null | 1427591045 | 1 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | grauenwolf | null | Don't worry, it isn't like anyone actually uses MongoDB anyways. Compatibility with industry standard APIs are just not worth the effort for someone's toy project. | null | 0 | 1315853980 | False | 0 | c2jckbi | t3_kd5f6 | null | t1_c2jckbi | t1_c2jboac | null | 1427591050 | -13 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | frezik | null | JavaScript has a perfectly natural way of specifying a compatibility break gracefully:
<script language="javascript2"> . . . </script> | null | 0 | 1315854000 | False | 0 | c2jckf2 | t3_kcwx2 | null | t1_c2jckf2 | t1_c2jc3xa | null | 1427591052 | 16 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | nickdangler | null | That doesn't even make sense. Please explain how the dotnet framework is an intermediate language, in terms of compilers. | null | 0 | 1315854008 | False | 0 | c2jckgh | t3_kcwx2 | null | t1_c2jckgh | t1_c2jcae6 | null | 1427591053 | 2 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | [deleted] | null | [deleted] | null | 0 | 1315854039 | False | 0 | c2jcklu | t3_kc5di | null | t1_c2jcklu | t1_c2jbtfj | null | 1427591053 | 1 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | treo | null | So I looked some more for it and actually found it:
http://pgsnake.blogspot.com/2011/08/postgresql-91-meet-mysql.html | null | 0 | 1315854064 | False | 0 | c2jckq7 | t3_kd0x9 | null | t1_c2jckq7 | t1_c2jch17 | null | 1427591056 | 4 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | frezik | null | Yes, it'll work on Windows 7, Windows Vista, and Windows XP. That's three platforms right there. | null | 0 | 1315854151 | False | 0 | c2jcl65 | t3_kcwx2 | null | t1_c2jcl65 | t1_c2ja7yu | null | 1427591062 | 1 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | anonymous_hero | null | > Google isn't paying them because they like them, they're paying them because Mozilla is sending them searches
Which search engine do you use when you're on Firefox? What about when using Chrome? Safari? Opera?
That's right, you _Google for_ stuff. It's not Mozilla sending them searches if people will use Google no matter what browser they're on.
For the record, I use DuckDuckGo for most of my searches, and only resort to Big Brother when I feel like it will provide better results. So yeah, it might not be Google that _you_ specifically use, but you get the idea.
| null | 0 | 1315854214 | False | 0 | c2jclhi | t3_kawp5 | null | t1_c2jclhi | t1_c2jb3ox | null | 1427591066 | 1 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | nascent | null | While Walter isn't giving the "real story" he is summarizing the conditions which allows Tango code adopted by Phobos.
There was much misunderstanding, but in reality it doesn't matter. iLiekCaeks' "Tango was ignored out of existence" and the counter "Tango tried to sue Phobos" are both wrong statements about what happened and how it was concluded.
Phobos uses Boost and it is up to the developer to get their code in the library they want it in, not Tango's team and not Phobos's. | null | 0 | 1315854228 | False | 0 | c2jcljv | t3_kaxjq | null | t1_c2jcljv | t1_c2j4cz4 | null | 1427591067 | 2 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | frezik | null | An Intermediate Language should be easier, though. It's not like anybody has to actually understand the IL compiler's output. | null | 0 | 1315854249 | False | 0 | c2jclo4 | t3_kcwx2 | null | t1_c2jclo4 | t1_c2jb0ch | null | 1427591068 | 2 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | CalvinR | null | Yeah it's another failure like Google Maps, and Gmail, and google search itself.
You won't succeed unless you try, sure you may fail but it could fulfill everything they hope it does. | null | 0 | 1315854316 | False | 0 | c2jclzv | t3_kcwx2 | null | t1_c2jclzv | t1_c2jayfc | null | 1427591073 | 14 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | merlinm | null | absolutely. when doing batch/queue processing, I tend to peel off N records inside a plpgsql function and process them, holding the processing set in an array:
starts with this,
FOR r in array(select * from foo where something order by something LIMIT 100) LOOP ...
and follows up with this:
DELETE FROM FOO where <similar query>
This is harder to get right than it looks and is sensitive to transaction isolation mode if the delete query is sloppy. It's also inefficient if the select query is non trivial (in which case I'd be getting the delete list by re-expanding the array).
In 9.1, you can do it in one beautiful pass. Tragically, we don't have DELETE...LIMIT, forcing you to do WITH q as (SELECT ... LIMIT) DELETE WHERE IN (...FROM q) RETURNING *, but you can still process the loop directly off the returning results.
| null | 0 | 1315854387 | False | 0 | c2jcmbw | t3_kd0x9 | null | t1_c2jcmbw | t1_c2jcecm | null | 1427591077 | 3 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | [deleted] | null | [deleted] | null | 0 | 1315854467 | False | 0 | c2jcmrf | t3_kcwx2 | null | t1_c2jcmrf | t1_c2jb5ws | null | 1427591082 | 2 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | [deleted] | null | No, it's quite specifically not that. Microsoft deliberately created confusion between their java vs sun's java, and Jscript vs javascript. Google are creating something entirely different to sit alongside javascript, with a specified comparability layer to fall back to javascript when necessary. | null | 0 | 1315854513 | False | 0 | c2jcn1e | t3_kcwx2 | null | t1_c2jcn1e | t1_c2jb5ws | null | 1427591087 | 2 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | recursive | null | "throws" gives it away. | null | 0 | 1315854644 | False | 0 | c2jcnqc | t3_kb1gc | null | t1_c2jcnqc | t1_c2j1cwe | null | 1427591095 | 1 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | frezik | null | How do you know Dart will be worse? Have you seen the spec? | null | 0 | 1315854706 | False | 0 | c2jco45 | t3_kcwx2 | null | t1_c2jco45 | t1_c2jaqbw | null | 1427591100 | 3 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | Poltras | null | You still determines the limits of your language. I'd say it's probably worse.
Stack based or register based? Or both? Op-code packed? SIMD? Register/parameter size? How do you implement closure (if at all)? Do you go the Python way or the Java way? Do you support functional semantics (and optimize for them)? What about move semantics? Do you want your objects refcounted or have a passthru gc?
There's so much design choices that affect what you'll be able to put in (or not) in 2 years from now that there's nothing simple. | null | 0 | 1315854722 | False | 0 | c2jco7c | t3_kcwx2 | null | t1_c2jco7c | t1_c2jclo4 | null | 1427591110 | 5 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | [deleted] | null | > The real problem is that Google has shown no ability at all to cooperate with others.
Working with others is a demonstrably bad way to develop new technologies. We've tried design by committee, it doesn't work. | null | 0 | 1315854827 | False | 0 | c2jcoqc | t3_kcwx2 | null | t1_c2jcoqc | t1_c2jamil | null | 1427591112 | 5 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | recursive | null | Then there should probably be two version of this map data structure. One for people who want to do normal sensible type safe things with it, which is the behavior that 99.9% of use cases probably call for, and the other, which would mainly be used to show how you can do weird tricks with .equals() overloading. | null | 0 | 1315854845 | False | 0 | c2jcotx | t3_kb1gc | null | t1_c2jcotx | t1_c2j7plt | null | 1427591114 | 1 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | NoMoreNicksLeft | null | Wow.
Just wow. I'm one dumb feature away from having everything on my wishlist. (Not a DBA, so replication and the like... someone else's problem.) | null | 0 | 1315854884 | False | 0 | c2jcp0o | t3_kd0x9 | null | t1_c2jcp0o | t1_c2jckq7 | null | 1427591115 | 3 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | [deleted] | null | [deleted] | null | 0 | 1315854905 | False | 0 | c2jcp53 | t3_kcwx2 | null | t1_c2jcp53 | t1_c2jb6it | null | 1427591117 | 4 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | OldSchoolIsh | null | Yup,.. when we totaled up the time we spent dealing with merge issues, configuring new builds for branches, generally keeping the server maintained (clearing up old test runs/making sure it had space), trying to find why builds failed by looking through the build logs, and heaven forfend we should want to add a whole new project to the damn thing, XML here we come.
Where as we had our builds up and running in TFS, the full build and deployment workflow configured (even the complex bits) within a morning. What's more if the build fails, we get a bug straight in the tracker against the build version, a line reference, which we can click on and go straight to the point of failure, no more log files, no more trying to find better xslt to present them, no more fanny around, build -> problem -> fix, Great. | null | 0 | 1315855016 | False | 0 | c2jcpot | t3_kc5di | null | t1_c2jcpot | t1_c2jc8xe | null | 1427591120 | 1 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | [deleted] | null | Um right, but we were talking about SVN. | null | 0 | 1315855153 | False | 0 | c2jcqcn | t3_kc5di | null | t1_c2jcqcn | t1_c2jcklu | null | 1427591135 | 1 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | [deleted] | null | ActiveG sounds too clear and distinct. Compare with Wave, Go, +. | null | 0 | 1315855192 | True | 0 | c2jcqh8 | t3_kcwx2 | null | t1_c2jcqh8 | t1_c2jbcgg | null | 1427591132 | 4 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | merlinm | null | curious: what feature? | null | 0 | 1315855215 | False | 0 | c2jcqpb | t3_kd0x9 | null | t1_c2jcqpb | t1_c2jcp0o | null | 1427591140 | 2 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | rizla7 | null | yea, my bad, i keep mixing up that date by 10 years. honest mistake: 2003, fixed. and i know SL is on the way out, but just threw it in some post cuz it was related. | null | 0 | 1315855314 | False | 0 | c2jcr7q | t3_kcwx2 | null | t1_c2jcr7q | t1_c2jbbdb | null | 1427591141 | -2 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | alabipep | null | Well, you should have known why I brought VB. You are talking about perfect evolution/devolution. So it is important to know what they look like and how they differ. VB is a perfect example of devolution: It evolved to a so ugly monster that it is difficult to even recoginize its origin. Its "evolution" makes its name: * Basic, a joke.
C++ is a totally different story. C++ evolved with constraints from C. C++ is a superset of C. If you don't like OO, templates, exceptions, the Standard Template Libraries, -- if you only like the simplistic no-bainer C --, fine, just don't use them, the advanced features won't stand in your way. Most major features in C++ are largely (if not completely) orthogonal to each other, that's awesome. C++ is complicated, yes, but it is so not without good reasons. Try doing a thought experiment of evolving C with its constraints, I doubt anyone can do a better job than C++. | null | 0 | 1315855356 | False | 0 | c2jcrfm | t3_kcwx2 | null | t1_c2jcrfm | t1_c2jbnxd | null | 1427591149 | 2 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | NoMoreNicksLeft | null | I play around with writing domains from time to time. I've got a kickass email one, for instance, that allows all valid email addresses, but kicks out invalid ones (only missing comments within usernames).
I'd like to be able to create a domain with multiple subfields and have constraints that work on them. As of 8.x I don't think this was possible. Haven't checked, but I don't think it was there in 9.0. | null | 0 | 1315855526 | False | 0 | c2jcsbv | t3_kd0x9 | null | t1_c2jcsbv | t1_c2jcqpb | null | 1427591159 | 2 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | checksinthemail | null | At that age you want to rewrite everything. I remember an old dude telling me when I was 20 and new to the field - "Every programmer can write code. Good programmers can read and modify other people's code without rewriting it"
At the time I rewrote a report the boss had made, just to add another level to the reporting. My boss of course tore it apart. It didn't matter that it made more 'sense' (to me), or that the task was completed quickly - what mattered was that I couldn't be trusted with making a small change to a project without going outside the bounds of the work necessary.
These days (23 years later, ugh), I try not to rewrite anything until I've worked with it for more than a season.
| null | 0 | 1315855555 | False | 0 | c2jcsh7 | t3_kczbt | null | t1_c2jcsh7 | t1_c2jc2l6 | null | 1427591168 | 12 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | frezik | null | Another scripting language *in the browser*.
Anywhere else, sure, we could do without it. | null | 0 | 1315855582 | False | 0 | c2jcsma | t3_kcwx2 | null | t1_c2jcsma | t1_c2jb816 | null | 1427591161 | 3 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | poo_22 | null | Can someone explain the problem with just pushing for an existing language that everyone likes to run under browsers? What i mean is that clearly people don't like javascript all that much, so why not push for python to be the language, or in the interest of Google, GO? Or ruby? Why invent a whole new thing? | null | 0 | 1315855615 | False | 0 | c2jcsso | t3_kcwx2 | null | t1_c2jcsso | t3_kcwx2 | null | 1427591164 | 6 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | Pxtl | null | Still better than Java. | null | 0 | 1315855683 | False | 0 | c2jct5k | t3_kcwx2 | null | t1_c2jct5k | t1_c2jcinw | null | 1427591171 | -3 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | ivquatch | null | You don't cut and paste a duplicated feature for the same reason you don't use "magic numbers". If there were a bug in the code, you'd have to fix it x number of times. In other words, you'd have to maintain each instance of the copy/pasted code individually, which increases the accidental difficulty and potential for human error. You'd be better off factoring it into a class/function that can be reused and modified in one place.
Global mutable variables are quick-and-dirty, but can cause problems once the code-base grows. They decrease referential transparency of your functions, making them more difficult to reason about. Also, they can change unexpectedly. Why expose these global variables to other parts of the code that doesn't need access to them? It just clutters things up. | null | 0 | 1315855835 | False | 0 | c2jcu0e | t3_kc6bw | null | t1_c2jcu0e | t1_c2j7xom | null | 1427591181 | 2 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | [deleted] | null | I know what I'm having for dinner now /craving | null | 0 | 1315855843 | False | 0 | c2jcu1o | t3_kcwx2 | null | t1_c2jcu1o | t1_c2ja4et | null | 1427591183 | -2 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | MarshallBanana | null | You were definitely not there when it actually happened, were you? | null | 0 | 1315855852 | False | 0 | c2jcu3z | t3_kcwx2 | null | t1_c2jcu3z | t1_c2jc78j | null | 1427591183 | 2 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | impatient | null | I guess I'm operating under the assumption that any work you can get out of people, is better than no work, which is an ok stance when you don't have time to spend to review(we're getting better about that), but not really.
If you've got someone who really loves deeply nested if statements. Re-factoring to make it easier for you, will make it outside of their mental model and you now own it.
If see 5 layers of nested if's and I think, there are 32 ways I could go wrong on this. If I add an interface and a couple implementations, I can get it down to 16 or fewer possible mistakes. (Or insert other way here)
I think each person understands complexity differently. I would want to encourage my way of thinking, but if I do a carte blanche rewrite, I have to find somewhere else to put him(assuming problem solved), discouraging him by rewriting his hard work, while not in any way developing him.
If I had to pick, I would almost pick #4 from the list. I think it's a misunderstanding of what simple is, where I take simple as "small enough chunks to reason about" and the other developer might take simple as "I have everything I need to solve it right here in this class"
The question is, how do you get people to "level up" or when do you decide that they aren't sufficiently dedicated to improvement.
I think reading other people's code is a skill that sooo many people don't have. If you have open source code you have questions about, you can just look at the source.
| null | 0 | 1315855868 | False | 0 | c2jcu6j | t3_kczbt | null | t1_c2jcu6j | t1_c2jcfv9 | null | 1427591184 | 3 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | 0xABADC0DA | null | From the memo:
> What about Go? Go is a very promising systems-programming language in the vein of C++.
Huh? Google Go and C++ have almost *nothing* in common (except for name mangling). C++ is a real systems programming language, Google Go is an applications programming language like Java.
Whoever wrote this memo must be some non-technical manager type. | null | 0 | 1315855939 | False | 0 | c2jcuk3 | t3_kcwx2 | null | t1_c2jcuk3 | t1_c2jb3uh | null | 1427591187 | -3 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | doubtingthomas | null | I bet they could finish Google+ faster if they could write in something better than Javascript. :) | null | 0 | 1315855948 | False | 0 | c2jculr | t3_kcwx2 | null | t1_c2jculr | t1_c2jas73 | null | 1427591189 | 6 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | igouy | null | > because nobody uses these languages
Few use Pascal or Modula or Oberon **now** - [the picture was different in the late '80s](http://drdobbs.com/article/print?articleId=184408407&siteSectionName=).
| null | 0 | 1315856001 | True | 0 | c2jcuwc | t3_kcwx2 | null | t1_c2jcuwc | t1_c2jc2fd | null | 1427591192 | 9 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | [deleted] | null | Your own example shows that languages can take off from each other - I don't know about the C -> C++ transition, but certainly Java was trying to fix some perceived flaws in C++ (multiple inheritance is the one that immediately comes to mind).
And don't forget C#, which seems to be fixes for Java. | null | 0 | 1315856050 | False | 0 | c2jcv5u | t3_kcwx2 | null | t1_c2jcv5u | t1_c2ja9o9 | null | 1427591195 | 0 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | candl | null | I don't think you can compare JavaScript in the same vein to C, C++, Java or other *regular* language. Yes, they have their flaws but javascript was meant to add just *some* interactivity to web pages. I can cope with JS as long as I have to deal with just a couple of jQuery functions. But you have to admit that once you grow anything larger than that it becomes a nightmare. This is a good time to introduce a new language that is meant with large application development in mind, because inevitably this is the direction that the web is taking. Web apps, not web pages. | null | 0 | 1315856097 | False | 0 | c2jcveb | t3_kcwx2 | null | t1_c2jcveb | t1_c2ja9o9 | null | 1427591198 | 4 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | rizla7 | null | actually, C# now includes many of the features VB had for *years*... ahem.. clearly VB is superior, in desktop RAD anyways: managed code = future. some people can't handle that. of course unmanaged will still rule mainframes and low powered devices. | null | 0 | 1315856113 | False | 0 | c2jcvh8 | t3_kcwx2 | null | t1_c2jcvh8 | t1_c2jb58c | null | 1427591200 | -4 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
Subsets and Splits
Filtered Reddit Uplifting News
The query retrieves specific news articles by their link IDs, providing a basic overview of those particular entries without deeper analysis or insights.
Recent Programming Comments
Returns a limited set of programming records from 2020 to 2023, providing basic filtering with minimal analytical value.