The acronym works both ways.

This is fully better than “go be a farmer”, at least. Not because nobody wants to be a farmer, but because software developers actually grasp what’s involved in bartending, and not just a fictional themepark version.

What alternatives, you assholes?

So, basically they’re just calling everyone else out of touch?

By what measure of disapproval? Not all Mexican immigrants are ready to rise up either.

(And it’s only ~0.5% in Canada)

Well, actually, the JWST…

TBF in the Y2K era JavaScript was less of a suspect choice of scripting language. And it’s a commercial variant called Nombas ScriptEase which is not better, and it’s unsupported since 2003, but there you go.

I hadn’t heard that, but it makes total sense given how they’re manufactured.

Fucking minimalist logo fonts…

IIRC software development, including games, was a pretty gritty industry last century too.

It’s more a matter of having the luxury of space for bloat. (Most of the anti-user features are new, though)

Ah, and you’re the author. That kind of changes the whole context here.

It doesn’t mean much, but have your upvote back.

It’s not even actually called lib. The line just straight up isn’t in the image “transcribed”, and it’s from arglib import comment_arguments in the original code.

Yeah, I gave this one a downvote.

I’m going to say it just is misinformation, if that’s what “lib” is here.

Hmm. I, on the other hand, tend to write a lot more code than I probably should before I do debugging, so there’s plenty to go back through again.

Although this looks like it’s for a browser, and for all I know debuggers work completely differently in there.

^ This is the person I want to develop with. My goodness, can I produce some tasty, broken first-pass code you can go wild on.

That’s kind of the whole philosophy, though. The tests are the main way you understand what you’re doing, the working code is just an addition on top of that. Presumably, there’s a way to do that without repeating yourself - although I’m not turning up much on a quick look.

Well, yeah, but I was kind of hoping you’d explain why.

Can’t you just add the wrapper to the test as well, if it’s easy to do in the actual code?

Yeah, you definitely run fixed tests on the whole thing. But when it returns indecipherable garbage, you’ve got to dive in in more detail, and at that point you’re just doing breakpoints and watchpoints and looking at walls of floating point values.

I suppose Strassen’s is recursive, so you could tackle it that way, but for other numerical-type things there is no such option.

If I actually did have that kind of job, the tests-first philosophy would sound very appealing. Actually, build the stack so you don’t have a choice - the real code should just be an instantiation of plumbing on generic variables with certain expected statistical properties. You can do that when correctly processing unpredictable but repetitive stuff is the name of the game, and I expect someone does.

At a certain level of detail, tests just become a debugger, right?

I’m thinking of something like an implementation of Strassen’s algorithm. It’s all arithmetic; you can’t really check for macro correctness at a micro point without doing a similar kind of arithmetic yourself, which is basically just writing the same code again. It resembles nothing other than itself.