This is your second warning to not break our CoC (3.2).

A third warning will result in a temporary ban from programming.dev.

Just a reminder that our instance CoC applies even on communities outside our instance. Please try to avoid calling people slurs per CoC 3.2 and 3.5. Failure to do so may lead to a temporary or permanent ban.

Looking at your instance handle, I hope/assume that your comment is supposed to be in lighthearted jest. However that would only be an assumption on my part and in general it’s not ok to say someone’s job/work tool is for [remarks directed at sex, gender, ethnicity, orientation, disabilities, etc…] per CoC 3.5.

Please take into consideration that members on this instance may be of different backgrounds than what you’re used to and interpets what you say differently. Further breaches of our Code of Conduct may lead to temporary or permament ban.

Please refrain from using slurs and disparage people for no good reason on our instance.

Please refrain from using personal insults in this community. You’re free to express your opinion, but personal insults does nothing but make the community more toxic. c/programming is a gathering ground for both inexperienced and experienced programmers, so this level of lashing out is uncalled for.

You can, but you may need to edit some registers to avoid windows reseting them.

Might as well start with a solid foundation from the start though. The extra work is minimal so there isn’t much of a time cost to it. I wouldn’t call it overengineering, it’s just a different way to write code, and the way many naturally default to without really thinking about it.

I get the point the author is coming from. When I was teaching first year engineering students programming, the one on the left is how everyone would write, it’s simply how human intuitively think about a process.

However, the one on the right feels more robust to me. For non trivial processes with multiple branches, it can ugly real quick if you haven’t isolated functionalities into smaller functions. The issue is never when you are first writing the function, but when you’re debugging or coming back to make changes.

What if you’re told the new Italian chef wants to have 15 different toppings, not just 2. He also got 3 new steps that must be done to prepare the dough before you can bake the pizza, and the heat of the oven will now depend on the different dough used. My first instinct if my code was the one on the left, would be to refactor it to make room for the new functionality. With the one on the right, the framework is already set and you can easily add new functions for preparing the dough and make a few changes to addToppings() and bake()

If I feel too lazy to write “proper” code and just make one big function for a process, I often end up regretting it and refactoring it into smaller, more manageable functions once I get back to the project the next day. It’s simply easier to wrap your head around

bakePizza() 
box()```
than reading the entire function and look for comments to mark each important step. The pizza got burned? Better take a look at `bakePizza()` then.

All it took for me to switch to GitLab was a larger free lfs quota which I wanted for a project. The superior webpage UI made me migrate every old project to it too.

Tabs work fine, you aren’t allowed to mix, indentation must be consistent.

Depends on the file, very simple files may only warrant npp, but VSCode for more complex stuff where live preview may come in handy.

U.S. commercial reactors have generated about 90,000 metric tons of spent fuel since the 1950s. If all of it were able to be stacked together, it could fit on a single football field at a depth of less than 10 yards. Nuclear waste is solid, it’s not that difficult to store it. We get more nuclear waste leaked into our nature from coal plants.

As a reference, here is the room that Switzerland stores their nuclear waste.

Nothing you said other than expenses is an argument against nuclear. If anything, the take from you argument is that we should construct even more nuclear, not less.

It’d honestly the funniest thing I’ve read on this instance. Puts programmer humour to shame. Love it when developers finds the jankiest/unconventional way to solve problems.

You genuinely think it’s faster to make a Web query, wait for search results to show up, click and wait for the correct webpage to load, navigate to the download page, download the exe, run the exe and go through the pop up menu than it is to type apt install x?

If you care about energy density, nuclear is the best solution, not coal. I guess Germans don’t care though

Clean code would have indentation though, and you can use whatever space you want as indentation. Bonus points if you use tabs so that others with special needs can configure the tab length on their end.

And I don’t think I’ve encountered an indentation error since the day I learned the language. How often do you encounter that error when writing python scripts? Sounds more like a theoretical problem than something anyone used to python would encounter.

I’ve never understood the complaint about forced indentation. What kind of monster doesn’t use indentation for their code anyway?

If anything, it’s nice that the language forces it on you so that you don’t stumble on code written by one of those monsters.

It’s uses safari’s engine, which is the only one allowed by Apple. Doesn’t matter what browser you download from the store.

The driver is fully responsible, but Tesla are also making the big bucks with misleading marketing of how good their driving assistance is. So it’s more profitable to keep people unaware of its actual capabilites.