I used to like the action followed by direct object format, until some time ago when trying to find methods or variables related to a specific object. If the action comes first, scanning for the object without an IDE means first reading unnecessary information about the action. That convinced me to opt for $object-$action in situations where it makes sense.
For example in CSS, I often scan for the element, then the action, so $element-$action makes more sense. BEM kinda follows this. When dealing with the DOM in JS, that makes sense too button.fileDialogOpen(), button.fileDialogSend(), … makes more sense when searching.
Of course one has to use it sensibly and where necessary. If you are writing a code that focuses more on actions than objects, putting the action first makes sense.
I find this much easier to follow than if main were defined last, because main is obviously the most important method and everything else is used by it. A flattened dependency tree is how these definitions make sense to me or how I would read them as newbie to a codebase.
NP, dude. As someone who learned JavaScript in the dark ages, when IE had to be a consideration for everything you did, writing a JS program now is trivial.
If it’s like Lisp, then ? is just part of the symbol and doesn’t have any special syntatic meaning. In different Lisps it’s also convention to end predicate names with a ? or with P (p for predicate)
I’m a principal backend engineer routinely writing Ruby for my day job, so I’m familiar, lol. But you can’t do it for local variables and that just sucks. Definitely a +1 for Elixir.
that works for 2 word names eg is_open or is_file, but in this case is_dialog_file_open is structured like a question, while dialog_file_is_open is structured like a statement
Ok, I might be misunderstanding here, but since committing changes is allowed for everyone, doesn’t this mean fixing bugs is something you could do? You’d just be stuck with all the other rights as well until someone else makes a change.
The main dev made the last commit, so they dont have the right to make another commit, until they arent the last person to make a commit anymore (until someone else has made a commit). This makes sure that there are at least 2 people making commits but hopefully much more.
In other words, making a commit revokes your right to do so until someone else makes a commit.
Am I just bad at reading? It says the right to make changes is granted to everyone one Earth. That would include the last person to make a commit as well, assuming they’re a citizen of Earth. I’m sure what you’re saying is what it’s supposed to say, but it isn’t actually what it says.
You can’t just ignore the second part of that sentence which gives the right to make commits to all citizens of earth. That would include the person who wrote the last commit.
The fact that you have 38 upvotes with such an incorrect statement is mind boggling.
This is how politics works I supposed. Write something that sounds plausible but is completely incorrect, inaccurate or completely fabricated and stupid people applaud and follow.
A right not being reserved does not mean it is waived, only that it is not exclusive. The last person to commit still has the right to commit, as does everyone else.
Yeah, the problem with the proposition is that you have all rights and access to the code regardless of who made the last commit, unless the last person to commit revoked the HPL.
the fact that there are this many people having different interpretations shows that the license would need waaaaaay clearer wording to hold any sort of water.
this is why i hate licenses like WTFPL and its ilk, just saying “do whatever” cannot possibly be legally viable and thus using anything with such a license is impossible by anyone who cares about copyright law (such as say, companies).
If you want your creations to be free for all to use, just slap a fat CC0 on it.
programmer_humor
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.