Why is it a void method? This only tells me that some state is mutated somewhere, but the effect is neither visible nor documented.
I would expect a function called “calculate” to just return a number and not have any side effects.
Self host with backups set up?
C is one of the few languages where using goto makes sense as a poor man’s local error/cleanup handler.
Kotlin is a really nice language with plenty of users, good tooling support, gets rid of a lot of the boilerplate that older languages have, and it instills many good practices early on (most variables are immutable unless specified otherwise, types are not nullable by default unless specified otherwise, etc)
But to get the most “bang for your buck” early on, you can’t beat JavaScript (with TypeScript to help you make sense of your codebase as it keeps changing and growing).
You will probably want to develop stuff that has some user interface and you’ll want to show it to people, and there is no better platform for that than the web. And JS is by far the most supported language on the web.
And the browser devtools are right there, an indispensable tool.
Flutter - the framework - is great. Dart as a language is tolerable - lot of ugly boilerplate, manual codegen, and things you can’t quite express correctly are everywhere, but if you’re not too much of a stickler, Flutter is still worth it (at least until Compose Multiplatform matures - if ever).
Well you don’t have to place it in a separate function, nothing stops you from inlining that part and writing li or whatever directly there.
It’s up to you how you organize your components.
But why bother with creating a new language, and duplicating all the features your language already has, in a weird way?
If I want a list of UI items based on an array of some data, I can just do
items.map(item => 〈Item key={item.id} item={item} /〉), using the normal map function that’s already part of the language.
Or I can use a function, e.g. items.map(item => renderItem(item, otherData)) etc.
JSX itself is a very thin layer that translates to normal function calls.
Still better than whatever the hell this is
https://vuejs.org/guide/essentials/template-syntax
The more you scroll down, the worse it gets.
And this too: https://vuejs.org/guide/essentials/list
A new separate language with features that already existed in the original language (and worked with all its tooling, etc.)
Custom template language and custom DOM attributes are way weirder than just using language-native constructs (ternary operator, map/filter, variables, functions, etc.) directly like you can in JSX.
Would that actually help?
Like, if you look at a list of recent vulnerabilities and breaches, what skills would have prevented those from happening?
On one hand, this is definitely a gap, on the other hand, you are very unlikely to run into it in practice.
The whole “pass an array/object into some function that will mutate it for you” pattern is not very popular in JS , you are much more likely to encounter code that just gives you a new array as a return value and treats its arguments as read-only.
If you validate your data at the boundaries where it enters your system (e.g. incoming JSON from HTTP responses), TypeScript is plenty good enough for almost all practical uses.
But that’s not the case here, seeing as they have
if self.len() >= MAX_STACK_ALLOCATION {
return with_nix_path_allocating(self, f);
}
in the code of with_nix_path. And I think they still could’ve made it return the value instead of calling the passed in function, by using something like
enum NixPathValue {
Short(MaybeUninitᐸ[u8; 1024]>, usize),
Long(CString)
}
impl NixPathValue {
fn as_c_str(＆self) -> ＆CStr {
// ...
impl NixPath for [u8] {
fn to_nix_path(＆self) -> ResultᐸNixPathValue> {
// return Short(buf, self.len()) for short paths, and perform all checks here,
// so that NixPathValue.as_c_str can then use CStr::from_bytes_with_nul_unchecked
But I don’t know what performance implications that would have, and whether the difference would matter at all. Would there be an unnecessary copy? Would the compiler optimize it out? etc.
Also, from a maintainability standpoint, the context through which the library authors need to manually ensure all the unsafe code is used correctly would be slightly larger.
As a user of a library, I would still prefer all that over the nesting.
I think the issue with this is that the code (https://docs.rs/nix/0.27.1/src/nix/lib.rs.html#297) allocates a fixed-size buffer on the stack in order to add a terminating zero to the end of the path copied into it. So it just gives you a reference into that buffer, which can’t outlive the function call.
They do also have a with_nix_path_allocating function (https://docs.rs/nix/0.27.1/src/nix/lib.rs.html#332) that just gives you a CString that owns its buffer on the heap, so there must be some reason why they went this design. Maybe premature optimization? Maybe it actually makes a difference? 🤔
They could have just returned the buffer via some wrapper that owns it and has the as_cstr function on it, but that would have resulted in a copy, so I’m not sure if it would have still achieved what they are trying to achieve here. I wonder if they ran some benchmarks on all this stuff, or they’re just writing what they think will be fast.
Clickbait title.
The packages were collectively downloaded 963 times before they were removed. The rogue packages include names like “noblox.js-vps,” “noblox.js-ssh,” and “noblox.js-secure,” and they were distributed across specific version ranges
Is there any indication that anyone actually installed these, other than some bots that auto download all packages and such?
You would have to really go out of your way to get infected by stuff like this.
That being said, there are things npm could do to try to auto-detect “risky” packages (new, similar name to existing projects, few downloads, etc.) and require an additional layer of confirmation, or something like that.
This is exactly the point made in this 2010 article that’s probably one of the things I link to most often in online discussions.
https://whatheco.de/2010/12/07/function-hell/
Also, the real problem with code on the right in OP is all the state mutations made to the arguments passed into the functions.
Not too familiar with golang, but this really could use some sort of builder pattern or something, if you’re going to mutate the object. Or a more functional style with just a pure function mapping an input “order” to output “toppings”, etc.
There are plenty of ways to make the bad design on the right better without stuffing everything into a single function, so the whole premise is a bit of a false dichotomy.
That sounds like spending a lot of extra effort just to avoid a little up-front effort.
It’s not nitpicking, stuff like this is far more impactful than choosing between 5 lines vs 10 lines long methods, or whether the
hasExtraCommissions“if” belongs inside or outside ofcalculateExtraCommissions. This kind of thing should immediately jump out at you as a red flag when you’re reading code, it’s not something to handwave away as a detail.