cat file.txt | grep foo is unnecessary and a bit less efficient, because you can do grep foo file.txt instead. More generally, using cat into a pipe is less efficient than redirecting the file into stdin with <, like grep foo < file.txt.

I mean, among people that use terminals, it’s very normal. Commonplace, even.

Because that’s a perfectly normal and reasonable thing to do?

Wtf are you talking about? It doesn’t have a fucked up name origin at all. It was named “master” as in “master recording”, like in music production. Proof: https://x.com/xpasky/status/1271477451756056577.

Master/slave concepts were never a thing in git. The whole renaming thing was really fucking stupid. Caused plenty of breakage of scripts and tools for absolutely no good reason whatsoever.

It’s great for non-HTML markup, like https://hyperview.org/.

A lot of the hate is undeserved. It has had awful paradigms built around it (like SOAP), but that doesn’t make XML inherently bad by any means.

Parents aren’t doing this. It’s purely a move by the elite to tighten the grip of the surveillance state, using the guise of “protecting the children” to absolve themselves of any scrutiny.

Yup. It’s insanity that this is not immediately obvious to every software engineer. I think we have some implicit tendency to assume we can make any tool work for us, no matter how bad.

Sometimes, the tool is simply bad and not worth using.

Admittedly I’m not sure if it works for Japanese, but English has online tools you can use to print out a sheet to write out every character and scan to turn into a font file. Would be surprising if it didn’t exist for Japanese.

So ultimately you probably just need someone with neat handwriting.

Naturally, vim is still acceptable.

Except it’s not seamless, and never has been. ORMs of all kinds routinely end up with N+1 queries littered all over the place, and developers using ORMs do not understand the queries being performed nor what the optimal indexing strategy is. And even if they did know what the performance issue is, they can’t even fix it!

Beyond that, because of the fundamental mismatch between the relational model and the data model of application programming languages, you necessarily induce a lot of unneeded complexity with the ORM trying to overcome this impedance mismatch.

A much better way is to simply write SQL queries (sanitizing inputs, ofc), and for each query you write, deserialize the result into whatever data type you want to use in the programming language. It is not difficult, and greatly reduces complexity by allowing you to write queries suited to the task at hand. But developers seemingly want to do everything in their power to avoid properly learning SQL, resulting in a huge mess as the abstractions of the ORM inevitably fall apart.

Access modifiers are definitely something I despise about OOP languages, though I understand that OOP’s nature makes them necessary.

The encryption thing is definitely weird/crazy and storing the SQL in XML is kinda janky, but sending SQL to a DB server is literally how all SQL implementations work (well, except for sqlite, heh).

ORMs are straight trash and shouldn’t be used. Developers should write SQL or something equivalent and learn how to properly use databases. eDSLs in a programming language are fine as long as you still have complete control over the queries and all queries are expressable. ORMs are how you get shit performance and developers who don’t have the first clue how databases work (because of leaky/bad abstractions trying to pretend like databases don’t require a fundamentally different way of thinking from application programming).

deleted by creator

I think the point is not that it’s a MacBook, but that the senior is using a single laptop instead of a full multi-monitor setup.

Personally as a senior, I use 4 monitors. My eyes are too shit to stare at a tiny laptop screen all day, and I want slack/browser/terminal windows on their own screens. It’s much more comfortable as well.

Removed by mod

Heh yeah that’s pretty straightforward:

SELECT a.*, COALESCE(b.some_col, 'some_default_val') as b_result
FROM a LEFT JOIN b ON (a.id = b.id);

This will produce at least 1 row for every row in a, and if a.id doesn’t match any b.id, the value of b_result will be 'some_default_val'.

Not sure if that’s exactly what you were describing (since it was a little ambiguous), but that’s how I interpreted it.

Ultimately it’s just a matter of investing a little time to learn it. It’s not fundamentally difficult or complex, even though you certainly can write very complex queries.

To be honest, it’s remarkably simple for what it’s doing. There’s a ton of details that are abstracted away. Databases are massively complex things, yet we can write simple queries to interact with them, with semantics that are well-understood and documented. I think, like anything else, it requires a bit of effort to learn (not a lot, though). Once you do, it’s pretty easy to use. I’ve seen many non-technical people learn enough to write one-off queries for their own purposes, which I think is a testament to its simplicity.

You seem to have missed the part where I said “unless there’s imminent danger”.

It doesn’t arbitrarily double rows or something. For each row in the relation on the left of the join, it will produce 1 or more rows depending on how many rows in the relation on the right of the join match the join condition. The output relation of the join may have duplicate rows depending on the contents of each joined relation as well as what columns you are projecting from each.

If you want to remove duplicates, that’s what DISTINCT is for.

That’s the whole point of a left join? Anything else wouldn’t be a left join anymore.