- Push directly to master, not main
- No command line args, just change the global const and recompile
- No env vars either
- Port numbers only go up to 5280, the number of feet in a mile
- All auth is just a password; tokens are minority developers, not auth, and usernames are identity politics
- No hashes – it’s the gateway drug to fentanyl
- No imports. INTERNAL DEVELOPERS FIRST
- Exceptions are now illegal and therefore won’t occur, so no need to check for them
- SOAP/XML APIs only
- No support for external machines. If it’s good enough for my machine, it’s good enough for yours.
Removed by mod
Yeah…this one is sadly on brand
Sadly? Master branch never implied the existence of a slave branch. It was one of the dumbest pieces of woke incursion into tech.
Yes exactly. It’s a reference to the recording industry’s practice of calling the final version of an album the “master” which gets sent for duplication.
In alignment with this, we should not replace the master branch with the main branch, we should replace it with the gold branch.
Every time a PR gets approval and it’s time to merge, I could declare that the code has “gone gold” and I am not doing that right now!
Merged -> gone gold
Deployed -> gone platinum
Gone a week without crashing production -> triple platinum
That’s just not true. It originally came from Bitkeeper’s terminology, which had a master branch and slave branches.
Not according to pasky, the git contributor who picked the names.
It was kind of pointless, but at least it made software work with custom default branches.
Yeah agreed. Just another piece of white devs acting like they knew better for everyone.
But why even? There’s no risk to changing it and some risk to keeping it. That’s the reason for the push to change it. Keeping something just because it’s tradition isn’t a good idea outside ceremonies.
It’s the principle of letting uneducated people dictate what words are acceptable to us
What makes you think they’re uneducated?
letting uneducated people
More like overeducated people
overeducated people who can’t see that “master” has multiple meanings.
I don’t accept that because everyone’s doing it or “group-think” are valid excuses do jump on a trend. Things like this maybe don’t seem like a big deal for you but for those that hate this culture it’s just one more example of a dumb change being shoved down their throats. This could also be the straw that breaks the camels back.
They have a reason. You just don’t like it.
They do, and you’re right. Morality policing and prigs are not my thing.
There is definitely a risk in changing it. Many automation systems that assume there is a master branch needed to be changed. Something that’s trivial yes but changing a perfectly running system is always a potential risk.
Also stuff like tutorials and documentation become outdated.
If they can’t change what’s essentially a variable name without issues then should they be doing the job?
In assessing risk assume everyone is a bumbling idiot. For we all have moments of great stupidity.
pray tell me how would you change the name in every script of an automation system that refers to master? Remember, you have to justify the time and cost to your manager or director!
For this political correctness you get trunk.
Main branches will be renamed Master
Nope Main branches will be renamed Daddy
More like Grandwizard
deleted by creator
Git default branch renamed back from main to master
(Someone else made it but I can’t find the source)and all the others start with “slave/”
Would be the most sane thing he’s ever done.
That one actually seems plausible, if he ever learns about that whole thing
He’s got to be in contact with the CEO of my company, this is trade secret theft if not…
Haven’t heard of the stack address thing, anyone got a TLDR on the topic?
Pretty sure that it’s something a long the lines of “stack begins high, grows down, while heap behind low grows high” when they meet, it’s a stack overflow
TL;DR: For historical reasons stacks growing down is defined in hardware on some CPUs (notably x86). On other CPUs like some ARM chips for example you (or more likely your compiler’s developer) can technically choose which direction stacks go but not conforming to the historical standard is the choice of a madman.
Dynamic stacks are pretty common in the most popular scripting languages, but considered bad practice from folks who use systems languages
GTFOH with that. 1-indexed arrays?! You monster.
(Mostly joking… Ok, somewhat joking :P )
Lua has entered the chat
Writing Lua code that also interacts with C code that uses 0 indexing is an awful experience. Annoys me to this day even though haven’t used it for 2 years
Lua had been banned from the chat
Don’t do my boy Lua dirty like that >:(
I always felt that Lua was a girl
Lua - Portuguese feminine noun for “moon”, coming from the Latin “luna”
Luna - Latin, feminine noun (coincidentally identical to the Italian noun, also feminine)Yup, Lua is a girl.
In Lua all arrays are just dictionaries with integer keys, a[0] will work just fine. It’s just that all built-in functions will expect arrays that start with index 1.
Your argument isn’t making me any happier - it just fills me with more rage.
That’s slightly misleading, I think. There are no arrays in Lua, every Lua data structure is a table (sometimes pretending to be something else) and you can have anything as a key as long as it’s not nil. There’s also no integers, Lua only has a single number type which is floating point. This is perfectly valid:
local tbl = {} local f = function() error(":(") end tbl[tbl] = tbl tbl[f] = tbl tbl["tbl"] = tbl print(tbl) -- table: 0x557a907f0f40 print(tbl[tbl], tbl[f], tbl["tbl"]) -- table: 0x557a907f0f40 table: 0x557a907f0f40 table: 0x557a907f0f40 for key,value in pairs(tbl) do print(key, "=", value) end -- tbl = table: 0x557a907f0f40 -- function: 0x557a907edff0 = table: 0x557a907f0f40 -- table: 0x557a907f0f40 = table: 0x557a907f0f40 print(type(1), type(-0.5), type(math.pi), type(math.maxinteger)) -- number number number number
Fortran angrily starts typing…
Visual Basic used to let you choose if you wanted to start arrays at 0 or 1. It was an app-wide setting, so that was fun.
I’ve not heard that name in a long time…
It’s how I got into programming, so I’ll always have a soft spot for it. Now it’s over 20 years later and I’m still coding.
How is arrays starting at 1 still a controversial take. Arrays should start at 1 and offsets at 0.
Arrays are address offsets.
Implying the orange fella has any say in programming language design and general tech conventions
Implying he only makes executive orders about things he has a say in.
You have a point unfortunately.
I started reading that from the top and got increasingly angry on the way down. That creature is a monster.
MAGA - Make Assembly Great Again
From this point on, all arrays are reverse-indexed.
♾️-0 ♾️-1 …
Hey now, you know that according to the Bible the biggest number is a million. Anything larger than that including infinity is some of that “woke shit”.
Your array will be 999,999, 999,998, 999,997 …
Removed by mod
Im unfamiliar with this as well. If you are allocating memory for a stack, why does it matter which direction it populates data? Is this just a convention?
Removed by mod
Ah thank you so its just a convention.
Halfway to Lua lol
Error handling should only be with “if”
Variable names must be generic and similar to each-other
Debugging is only done with prints
Version numbers must be incoherent, hard to order correctly, contain letters and jump in ways that don’t align with the updates done.
Variable names should be var{n} where n = 0, 1, 2…
Pff, just use the numbers directly:
${1} = "value"; ${2} = "DOGE";That makes it possible to do stuff like:
for (${152} = 1; ${152} <= 2; ${152}++) { ${666} = $${152}; print(${666}); }This is a valid code, btw.
Single letters or UTF8 symbols only. Emojis are encouraged.
