Diseased Open Source Software Community - it's about ethics in Code of Conducts

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
Very small, but funny sperg from a frontend guy
Home Assistant is a foss home automation software. Its frontend organizes elements in "cards" on a grid. This card provides a pop up that can hold other cards for easier organization.

Programmers are special. Open source programmers are specialer. Frontend open source programmers are the specialest.

Change your project name because in Google's terminology the design of it is actually called a "pill" not a "bubble"

1712218328095.png
1712218611319.png


Someone actually made a PR to change the readme to this, though that has to be a troll.

Links:
 
Change your project name because in Google's terminology the design of it is actually called a "pill" not a "bubble"
Why do retards think material design is the only design style guide in the world? It's like the fuckwits who think Chicago is the only manual of writing style, when there's at least a dozen.

Atlassian calls it a lozenge and apple used to call it a bubble or a chip. Probably still does.
 
I can. I use well-documented languages, like Ada and Common Lisp, so if I forget how something works I can either pick up a book to check or enquire the system itself. I have every IETF RFC on my system. I also avoid getting myself elbow-deep in the diseased entrails of shitty systems in the first place.
What's the difference between a book and online documentation? What makes books better?
 
Why do retards think material design is the only design style guide in the world? It's like the fuckwits who think Chicago is the only manual of writing style, when there's at least a dozen.

Atlassian calls it a lozenge and apple used to call it a bubble or a chip. Probably still does.
In HA's case, they based the whole UI on Material Design so while this guy's still a sperg he at least has some basis for his rambling.
 
In HA's case, they based the whole UI on Material Design so while this guy's still a sperg he at least has some basis for his rambling.
I suppose that's fair.

However, I decided that I needed to refresh myself on MD (yay work) and I realised something: Pill isn't actually a defined term in the spec at all. It's used as an assumed conventional term for an elongated shape with semi-circular ends, but it's not defined as such. So he's a double retard who can't even get his own favour design language right.
 
What's the difference between a book and online documentation? What makes books better?
Print documents are coherent and arranged by concept. They are that way because they were intentionally organized by an experienced programmer and likely also an editor. There's nothing that prevents online documentation from being this way, but it costs next to nothing to generate documentation from comments and function signatures and embed a google search box as your index.
 
What's the difference between a book and online documentation? What makes books better?
In addition to what's already been stated, a book can't spy on me, and a book's contents can't be changed in any way similar to a digital resource. No one is going to sneak into my house to change pages in one of my books.

Anyway, that was a stupid question.
 
In addition to what's already been stated, a book can't spy on me, and a book's contents can't be changed in any way similar to a digital resource. No one is going to sneak into my house to change pages in one of my books.

Anyway, that was a stupid question.
But your 2023 book is now incompatible with the 2024 version of our API where we just renamed every instance of Whitelist to AllowList since it's more inclusive with our corporate values. I'm also pleased to announce the beta has begun for 2024.2, however you'll have to have an active software assurance agreement and login credentials to view the documentation for future releases.
 
But your 2023 book is now incompatible with the 2024 version of our API where we just renamed every instance of Whitelist to AllowList since it's more inclusive with our corporate values. I'm also pleased to announce the beta has begun for 2024.2, however you'll have to have an active software assurance agreement and login credentials to view the documentation for future releases.
I use languages older than some of the posters here in part to avoid this kind of shit. Common Lisp and Ada 1995 haven't changed since the last millennium.
 
In addition to what's already been stated, a book can't spy on me, and a book's contents can't be changed in any way similar to a digital resource. No one is going to sneak into my house to change pages in one of my books.

Anyway, that was a stupid question.
And what's your problem with setting up a local mirror of the repository to serve the docs yourself?
It doesn't need an internet connection, doesn't spy on you and gives you more options than a book can.
 
And what's your problem with setting up a local mirror of the repository to serve the docs yourself?
I've already mentioned having, as an example, a backup of the IETF RFCs, but those are more casual reading than anything. Stop trying to excuse so-called programmers who can't do anything without a direct connection to Mother Brain who will guide them.
 
I use languages older than some of the posters here in part to avoid this kind of shit. Common Lisp and Ada 1995 haven't changed since the last millennium.
It's all well and good for you to stick with your autistic mid 90s time capsule, but unless your software can exist in a vacuum, you're going to be adapting to ever-changing standards and interfaces. While your Common Lisp bible is still accurate, good luck sequestering yourself in the mountains and producing anything worth a damn if that's all you have.

Unless you want to be like Terry A. Davis and write literally everything yourself.
And what's your problem with setting up a local mirror of the repository to serve the docs yourself?
It doesn't need an internet connection, doesn't spy on you and gives you more options than a book can.
It's the difference between high quality documentation vetted by an editor and technical writer vs absolute trash written by barely literate pajeets or entirely code-generated nonsense.

Microsoft Graph is probably the worst I've worked with from a big name vendor. The C# SDK is majority auto-generated code and in spite of how much code there is for every single possible method, request type and combination of filters, it's a buggy piece of shit that is near impossible to debug. You know when you're knee deep in the stack and seeing ExportDeviceAndAppManagementDataWithSkipWithTopRequestBuilder, you're the only human being who has ever laid eyes upon this nonsense.

They also completely fuck with the library every year or so for no good reason. When I updated from v4 to v5, it required a bunch of changes to the way authentication is done and the documentation for it was non-existent beyond a single sample repo upon release. The actual docs are a spiderweb of incomplete examples with useful info buried in deep links.

It's a shame as HTML-based documentation needn't be so shit, but pajeets ruin literally everything they touch.
 
It's all well and good for you to stick with your autistic mid 90s time capsule, but unless your software can exist in a vacuum, you're going to be adapting to ever-changing standards and interfaces.
Hence software should be designed to exist in a vacuum. There's no good reason anything but the highest layer should need to be changed occasionally, if that. Software can be finished.
While your Common Lisp bible is still accurate, good luck sequestering yourself in the mountains and producing anything worth a damn if that's all you have.
It's time to drink.
Unless you want to be like Terry A. Davis and write literally everything yourself.
I do, and that means several things: Firstly, I won't be hit by a dependency getting some chink maintainer who tries to fuck me over; secondly, if my software be flawed, it will be flawed in different ways and therefore less attackable; thirdly and lastly, this means I'll simply never write certain kinds of software, even if I'd like to do so.

Let's pretend I needed to write something using the xz compression format. I hate this trend of software written in superior languages using C language libraries, because the flaws bubble up, so I'd have to implement liblzma by myself, which would take a while, given I'd need to study the format to design the interface, and I'd probably lose interest. The easiest option would be to remove the stupid fucking xz dependency, wouldn't it? Complicated software is only growing more complicated, and this is what large corporations want, because it removes the power of an individual to implement such software alone, with the WWW as the best example.

The trend of shoving TLS into everything is another good example. How many TLS libraries are there? Not many are. Several years back, I downloaded and played with DRAKMA, a Common Lisp HTTP client library. It was fun, and I could do some neat things with the restart system, but auditing DRAKMA and all of its dependencies was a bother, and it used OpenSSL, making it vulnerable to the same horseshit as all of the other programs written in inferior languages. The easiest thing to do is to write a Common Lisp program to generate input for GNU Wget, which can be sequestered across a process boundary at the least.

So, by writing things alone, I distinctly feel each dependency, and can carefully judge which are truly necessary and which are superfluous. Many are superfluous. A fucking SHA-3 library written in the C language had a damning flaw, and it may have been there for years purposefully. I've implemented the SHA-1 and SHA-2 family of functions by myself, which means I'm not affected by flaws in common libraries; SHA-3 is a bit harder to implement, and I have no need for it, so I haven't done it yet, and may never get around to doing it.
All programming languages and all associated packages should have man pages, "man perlfunc" etc.
GNU Info is better.
attention all boomer programmers: please attend todays cobol code review
I have some COBOL books by Tyler Welburn I need to finish reading. It's a fascinating language, and lacks some of the flaws that plague modern programs, believe it or not. Most COBOL is written as a finite state machine, which immediately removes the possibility for several kinds of errors. Sure, COBOL programs are often gated to get good inputs only; gee, is that cheating or a good idea?
 
Why is this thread tagged "Infected"? It seemed to get the tag because of a few pages of X/Wayland sperging a while back, but really that was completely on topic, and anyway it was several months ago.
I agree. With a little bit of effort, we can get it to plagued status.
 
Back