I learned so much over the years abusing Cunningham’s.
Could have a presentation for the C-suite for a major company, post some tenuous claim related to what I intended to present on, and have people with PhDs in the subject citing papers correcting me with nuances that would make it into the final presentation.
It’s one of the key things I miss about Reddit. The scale of Lemmy just doesn’t have the same rate and quality of expertise jumping in to correct random things as a site with 100x the users.
The major problem with reddit is that you could never really trust the credentials of the person you were talking to. They might have been PhDs or they might have been 13 year olds who just learned to Google. It amazes me how many times I saw a highly upvoted comment posted about a subject that I knew a lot about, but was just so blatantly wrong.
Only if it’s something controversial. If it’s something technical with no political affiliation, people vote for answers that sound right. Thankfully Cunningham’s usually comes to the rescue on time.
To be fair this is not a Reddit thing and it can be found in the fediverse too. I can remember some of such situations where a person just posted wrong stuff but in a very confident way. I was able to prove him wrong later but nobody cared anymore.
I always kind of felt like those voices began to be drowned out the more and more popular reddit became. You’re correct about Lemmy’s scale, but there is certainly a sweet spot. I’m happy knowing Lemmy hasn’t yet reached its own, and reddit’s is long gone. I’m happier here and it’s likely only going to get better.
There are serious programming subs. However, I find that those tend to debate/discuss solutions/approaches moreso than the actual code itself, although that’s not unheard of either. For actual coding questions, I want to say there’s a “learn programming” sub that has those, but they’re pretty strict about just doing people’s homework for them (those posts tend to be pretty obvious).
The validation system is extremely off-putting. I have been working on some specialized tools for years so I could have answered some very precise questions with good confidence. However, the system was always there to detrust me and I was not going to spend hours to go through their hoops for an answer that takes me 10 min to redact. So instead I’ll post it on Reddit or a gist hopping people will be able to discover it.
Honestly, meme communities’ comments could have some of the best in-depth discussions. Memes tend to provide a great launching point for discussions. A sort of prompt that everyone can coalesce around to talk in a serious manner about the subject.
/r/dndmemes and /r/programmerhumor were two great examples.
My coworkers had a hard time picking resturaunts, so I started recommending McDonald’s for work parties, and then everyone else started chiming in with actually good ideas.
Sometimes that’s part of the issue (or the whole deal), but sometimes it’s not even that.
Sometimes it’s that someone asked something difficult and elaborate to answer, which has been answered a ton of times, and it’s tedious to answer again and again. But if someone answers with misinformation or even straight FUD, then one needs to feel the urge to correct that to prevent misinformation.
I suffered that with questions in r/QtFramework. Tons of licensing questions, repeated over and over, from people who have not bothered to read a bit about such a well known and popular license as LGPL. Then someone who cares little for the nuance answers something heavy handed, and paints a wrong picture. Then I can’t let the question pass. I need to correct the shitty answer. :-(
I would say that if someone asks a difficult question it’s often difficult because it’s very general, so you don’t have any specific point to answer that you know will satisfy the person asking.
On the other hand, if someone is writing misinformation then they provide specific statements which still may be difficult to correct but you have those anchor points you can refer to.
So I guess the thing here is that if someone, after asking a question, writes a BS answer they actually refine their question and narrow its scope, thus making it easier to answer.
I usually see broad questions about rather simple things unanswered, but very specific yet difficult questions answered
Nah thats called laws of thermodynamics! And they were made up by Elvis together with is homy Obama (the guy without last name) who were known for their contributions to biology
Serializing? For serializing you probably want performance above all else. I’m saying this without checking any benchmark, but I’m sure yaml is more expensive to parse than other formats where indentation don’t have meaning.
For human readability: it has to be readable (and writeable) by all humans. I know (a lot of people) that dislike yaml, toml and XML. I don’t know of a single person that struggles to read/write json, there is a clear winner.
JSON would be perfect if it allowed for comments. But it doesn’t and that alone is enough for me to prefer YAML over JSON. Yes, JSON is understandable without any learning curve, but having a learning curve is not always bad. YAML provides a major benefit that is worth the learning curve and doesn’t have the issues that XML has (which is that there is no way to understand an XML without also having the XSD for it)
If a comment isn’t part of the semantic content of a JSON object it has no business being there. JSON models data, it’s not markup language for writing config files.
You can use comments in JSON schema (in a standardized way) when they are semantically relevant: json-schema.org/…/comments
For the data interchange format, comments aren’t part of the JSON grammar but the option to parse non-JSON values is left open to the implementation. Many implementations do detect (and ignore) comments indicated by e.g. # or //.
I’ve disagreed with JavaScript before, what makes you think I won’t do it again?
Anyway, anything using JSON as a config language will also certainly use a JSON interpreter that can ignore comments. Sure that’s “implementation specific,” but so is a config file. You wouldn’t use “MyApplication.config.json” outside the context of MyApplication loading its own configuration, so there’s no need for it to be strictly compliant JSON as long as it plays nicely with most text editors.
Serializing isn’t necessarily about performance, or we’d just use protobuf or similar. I agree Json is a great all rounder. Combine with JSON object schema to define sophisticated DSLs that are still readable, plain JSON. TOML is nice as a configuration language, but its main appeal (readability) suffers when applied to complex modeling tasks. XML is quite verbose and maybe takes the “custom DSL” idea a little too far. YAML is a mistake.
I don’t know why we’re fucking about trying to use text editors to manipulate structured data.
Yeah, it’s convenient to just be able to use a basic text editor, but we’re not trying to cram it all on a floppy disk here. I’m sure we could have a nice structured data editor somewhere for all those XML, JSON and YAML files we’re supposed to maintain every day.
JSON for serialization all the way. It’s simple and to the point. It does one thing and does it well. There’s little room for annoying surprises. Any JSON can easily be minified and prettified back and forth. If you want it in binary format you can convert it to BSON.
Yaml is too much of a feature creep. It tries to do way too many things at the same time. There are so many traps to fall into if you’re not cautious enough. The same thing can be written in multitudes of ways.
programmer_humor
Newest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.