lysdexic @ lysdexic @programming.dev

Posts

65

Comments

357

Joined

2 yr. ago

I don’t believe you have to specify the condition at compile time. I think that optimization would fall under dead code elimination.

How do you tell if some code behind a conditional is dead if the predicate that drives the condition is evaluated at runtime?

which communities?

If you're paying any attention to what your bot is doing, you'll be aware of which communities it's triggering and what/how many messages it's spamming them with.

Nevertheless, again: the problem with your bot is that it's broken by design. If your goal is to cross-post submissions to related communities, instead of spamming discussions with requests your bot would be cross-posting submissions to related communities. If you did any semblance of requirements gathering, you would also notice that a basic feature of these bots is a) be opt-in, b) stop posting based on community feedback.

I’m reasonably sure compilers can shift the if out. I believe it’s called “loop invariant code motion”.

That scenario would only apply if the condition was constant and specified at compile time. There's no indication on whether var1 or var2 are compile-time constants or predicates evaluated at runtime.

for node.js it seems like it was triggering (...)

The problem is not how the bot is triggered. The problem is that the bot is broken by design. Its main output is spamming Lemmy instances with posts that add no value at all.

I mean, haven't you even noticed that in some communities your bot is posting more messages than the number of daily visitors?

What exactly do you plan to achieve with this?

Please shut down your bot.

The article on c/programming was about postgresql and the article on c/postgresql was about performance.

It really doesn't matter. It's really not about the article. It's about the high volume of spam that you are trying to generate on programming.dev communities without creating any value at all. I mean, your bot is not cross-posting content: it's spamming communities to get someone else to do the work.

Here's the latest screwup that your bot is creating (link):

The !nodejs@programming.dev community currently lists 3 active users per month, and your bot spammed it on each new post sent to it asking those 3 active users to cross-post stuff to multiple communities. This is nuts.

Again, please stop with all the spamming. Your bot is the single most damaging thing done to programming.dev since its been launched.

I can't stress enough how annoying and ill thought out this bot is. I've seen the bot react to posts to !programming@programming.dev pointing to !postgresql@programming.dev , and then react to posts to !postgresql@programming.dev to point to !performance@programming.dev. What's the end goal here? Spam all communities with requests to cross-post stuff to all communities under the sun?

If the goal is to kill Lemmy as a usable service, you're doing a good job.

This guy 3Dprints.

What a treat of a post. This is why I subscribe to !3dprinting@lemmy.world. Thank you.

Leaving my 0.02$ here:

Please don't deploy this bot. It's annoying, it contributes nothing to actually create interesting content for the community to engage, and in fact its main output is spam.

It does more harm than good. Please don't.

I'd add that if the idea was any good then instead of spamming people left and right, it would suffice to crosspost stuff on target communities.

Even then, you’ll still want to have in mind instances known for spam, bots, or shady content have been blocked.

Is there a list tracking these instances?

I have two accounts,

The last post to !opensource@programming.dev was 6 days ago.

During the past week, the community received two posts. Only two.

In the past two weeks, it received 8 posts.

Again, if you care about content, all you need to do is post content. Please don't ruin everyone's experience by deploying spambots that add no value at all. Be smart about where to invest some effort.

Well, do you think its relevant to support anything else other than Git nowadays?

Yes. There are people who prefer Mercurial than Git, and there are quite a lot of projects out there which still use Subversion.

I really don't understand the mindset that leads to a belief that a monoculture is good or desirable.

Allura might do a bit more on that (...)

Yes, it does.

(...) but Gitea has way more features and the UI is actually decent.

That's debatable, but to each its own.

Perhaps this could shine some light on the "do you think it's relevant to suport anything else other than ".

Gitea is so much better than this.

Is it, though?

Also, Apache Allura supports revision control services other than Git, which apparently Gitea does not.

MIT licensed as well.

Why do you think that is relevant, specially given Apache Allura is released under the Apache license?

Here are some possibly related communities in the instance:

Instead of deploying annoying bots, if you care about traffic then you should post some discussions from now and then.

@Ategon , !opensource@programming.dev is basically dead and you haven't posted a single message there. If you care about content, shouldn't your effort be focused on creating posts instead of deploying annoying bots?

Should be titled, “demotivating a programmer with a specific personality type.”

The author talks about developers who are underpaid, aren't recognized by their work, and aren't even supported adequately with decent gear. This doesn't read like a list of developer traits. This reads like glorifying exploitation and terrible work conditions.

They force you think of o(n) and train you better than anything else on how to write your functions (but not how to organise them).

I agree. I think it's all about blind spots. A software engineer spends most of the time reading code, and the changesets they write most of the time are not algorithms or any fancy iteration beyond doing a vanilla for loop over a collection. leetcode-type exercises tend to invert that tendency, and present us with challenges which we would only rarely tackle. It's a good exercise in the sense that it forces a type of usecase we don't often use. Still, their practical usefulness beyond coding crossword puzzles is very limited.

This might sound silly but I think that coding challenges like HackerRank, CodeSignal help me improve/learn programming.

At first I thought they were utter crap, and recruiters used them to test candidates on artificial problems that matter nothing and reflected no relevant skill. I still do, they are awful at that. What a complete waste of time and effort.

However, these coding challenges are like crossword puzzles. They present us with nonsense challenges that provide us with the opportunity to employ obscure programming constructs on a multitude of programming languages in a way that rarely happen in real world professional settings. I use them to explore obscure corners of standard libraries, solve the same problem in multiple ways, employ different idiomatic ways to iterate over data structures, etc. That's helpful in a way.

Nothing. Just read Mozilla’s Manifesto

Your trolling skills are subpar but given this is a lazy weekend I guess I'll bite just for the entertaining value.

Let's go through "Principle 2, 3, 4 and 7", shall we?

Principle 2 The internet is a global public resource that must remain open and accessible.

Making source code available through GitHub is a realization of Principle 2. You got it exactly backwards.

Principle 3 The internet must enrich the lives of individual human beings.

I don't even know what could possess you to believe that making a software project available through GitHub would jeopardize this. Anyway.

Principle 7 Free and open source software promotes the development of the internet as a public resource.

That's what making FLOSS projects available to the public through GitHub does. GitHub, by providing managed hosting to Mozilla to host Firefox's project tree and making it available to the public, is unquestionably meeting this goal, both in its letter and its spirit.

You need to put some effort into finding things to be outraged about.

Because while you do have control (and “copies”) of the source code repository, that’s not really true for the ecosystem around it - tickets, pull requests, …

The announcement to drop Mercurial quite clearly states that their workflow won't change and that GitHub pull requests are not considered a part of their workflow.

Also, that's entirely irrelevant to start with. Either you care about software freedom and software quality, or you don't. If you care about software freedom you care about having free and unrestricted access to FLOSS projects such as Firefox, which GitHub clearly provides. If you care about software quality you'd care about the Firefox team picking the absolute best tools for the job that they themselves picked.