Comments by "xybersurfer" (@xybersurfer) on "NDC Conferences" channel.

  1. he should have explained the details of the underlying problem better. also a poor explanation of CQRS
    18
  2. probably the best talk about refactoring that i've seen. the world would be a better place with more programmers like this. it's really not so hard
    10
  3. ​ @wealcome_company  then the presenter really should have used a better example, than a ticketing system. i'm concerned with people like you that already think they have a solution, to a problem that was never fully explained. his compromise of not being able to choose the seat, doesn't even work for all ticketing systems like when children and parents are involved. i would have expected him to allow the user to specify that the seats have to be adjacent. i would have at least expected him to explain what the hell he was doing in the critical section, that took so long. without a good detailed example, it's all speculation
    8
  4. i think that part of the problem was that the screen completely changed when you entered the start menu. it confused users because the context of what they were doing is completely lost, and it was not immediately clear how to get back for example
    7
  5. i don't see this as a problem. redundancy in communication is completely different from redundancy in code
    6
  6.  @KelvinMeeks  he never described the underlying details of the problem. it happens too often that people wildy varying interpretations of what the problem is. i was also not happy with his explanation of CQRS, where he makes it sound as if it's impossible to base a write on a read operation
    6
  7. ​ @JoelByrnes  i disagree. a function named "ConnectToServer" should not be checking the configration. especially, when there is already a whole class for configuration. also with an exception you can normally pass a human-readable error message. when you catch the exception, then you can log both the stack trace and the human-readable error. there is no need to have different places in your code for logging the same error
    4
  8. who is Jimmy?
    4
  9. yeah he should have explained that better. maybe it somehow decreases what has to be done during a lock. who knows. it's a shame that he didn't go into more details about the actual underlying problem
    3
  10. what was that all about? is it a reference?
    2
  11. if we are talking about generative AI, then i have my doubts about it helping with C++. it's hard enough to find the subtle bugs generative AI creates, and that would be much worse in a memory unsafe language
    2
  12. it's good to go over the basics sometimes. but i would say it that this is a bit above the basics. it's not what you would give to a beginning C# programmer
    1
  13. i strongly disagree with the excuse of not running long running operations in the constructor. it's like saying that long running operations can't create anything. it's just a convenient lie, for the C# language designers, that actually harms how generic the language is. let programmers decide whether having a guaranteed initialized object is worth cost of waiting (which has to happen regardless, now it's just in the wrong place). i bet you it's worth it the majority of the time. i have similar but less strong feeling about the lack of async operations in properties
    1
  14.  @andredesantacruz  this sounds like a trick question, but i'll answer: he talks about command and query separation, but a command often requires a query. i think that he should have explained this point of contention better, so that it at least sounds feasible
    1
  15. ​ @andredesantacruz  i think you are mixing up 2 different discussion topics: - was the presenter's explanation of CQRS good? - what is CQRS? i've only been talking about the first. when i answered your question, i was only using what the presenter has said. i did not make any claims about what CQRS is. you say that commands and queries are not related, but this does not make sense either. are you claiming that the output of the queries are not affected by the commands? if we continue this discussion you will probably provide a better explanation about what is CQRS (second topic) than the presenter, but my point (first topic) still stands.
    1
  16.  @michelvandenberg7442  i did not know he was one of the first to coin CQRS. it's useful to know. by the way, i'm completely new to CQRS, but no to developing. i may do a deeper dive at some point
    1
  17. all these new HTML CSS new options feel like hacks despite them being standard. i think there is a much more interesting conversation to be had about why people choose JavaScript. although this talk and the talk i have in mind will get us very far, because we are basically stuck with old bad decisions
    1
  18. ​ @dripcaraybbx  perhaps. i feel a bit for both. JavaScript can present a more generic interface. typically the JavaScript specifications don't have to do something close enough to new CSS specifications. for designers and programmers it's nice that HTML/CSS is declarative but you typically can't reuse your definitions or use them to build bigger ones (which almost sounds imperative). my gut feeling is that we are probably missing a good declarative domain specific language like how we have SQL for databases (which also has a few problems, but nothing like HTML/CSS)
    1
  19. unfortunate in what way?
    1
  20.  @nigelstewart9982  the at method of std::vector::at() does have bounds checking
    1
  21. @therainman777 i haven't used python but i agree with you. i've used functional languages and it's hardly ever an issue. in other languages where you don't have to indent, you are going to do it anyway and start having to match up brackets more
    1
  22. i don't know his other presentations, but i disagree
    1