#angular4lyf

Yes, my main motivation for learning web development is pretty much to be able to code some stuff on my own. I currently work as a machine learning researcher which at least in the field of CS is about as far away from web development as it gets. However, there are some personal projects I would like to get out of my system at some point and outsourcing web development aspect of it seems needless when I could just learn the skills on my own.

So far I've used https://javascript.info/ and MDN docs for studying, but did some digging and found out about https://academind.com/ which seems to have lots of content about the entire JS-based stack. Does anybody have experience with the courses offered there/the instructor? At the first glance everything seems pretty thoroughly done and only $19 a month for that much content seems like a quite solid bargain.

Strongly recommend you just use react now (google "create-react-app"). Its not a framework exactly, its just javascript that outputs react controlled HTML i.e. you just call "vanilla" javascript methods on variables/collections to render it. Vue etc will do funky custom markup that is framework exclusive.

Academind and the instructor Max are great resources. That’s actually how I started learning vue and react. I used his udemy courses so idk about the site itself

Twitter Bans Common Programming Vernacular Like Sanity Check, Black List, etc

Article says code but it is really terminology. Actually this isn’t a bad idea imo. Access list is more descriptive/precise than white list for instance. Corrupt the stack is better than blow up the stack. System deterioration is better than system crash.

Sounds like a good idea.

This is when you know that this pc craziness went too far.

Was anyone asking for sanity check or black list to be removed?

I read someone speculating that companies are doing stuff like this, like Hulu removing a Golden Girls episode where they wore mudpacks (which again, no one was asking for), to try to discredit the seriousness of stuff like MeToo and BLM.

That sounds a bit conspiratorial. Wouldn't it be more likely that companies are doing these things preemptively because they are trying to reduce the risk of consumer backlash? Note: I'm not saying that's a rational choice, it just seems a more likely motivation.

I think it could be a combination of a lot of things. But seriously, who was asking for the Golden Girls ep to be removed? If you follow BLM people on twitter a lot of them were actually complaining that this has nothing to do with police reform, and means nothing to us.

Executives are rich old white dudes, even at Hulu. It could be a way to make the movement look silly. It could also be a way to say, "We removed the Golden Girls ep what more do you want? Oh you want actual structural changes to racial and gender pay equality? It's never enough with you people." etc. It could just be the super easy low-hanging fruit that doesn't cost anything.

What it's not, I'm almost certain, is a sincere attempt to address an injustice in a substantive way.

Same with twitter. Jack isn't the worst, but he's a third-way tech bro who thinks both sides are full of ****, mannnn. He's certainly not some progressive ultra-left thought leader. So why be the one to lead the charge on this issue that no one afaik was asking for? I'd bet money that he's enjoying all the devs rolling their eyes at this.

I'm not even certain that it's always top level executives making all of these decisions.

Anyway, we agree that it's unlikely that decisions are always made out of some very sincere interest in addressing injustice, although I would expect that there are some people within these organizations trying to do that. But I kind of doubt there's a lot of intentional trolling going on either.

I feel like you're trying to apply a lesson you think you've learned from online forums to a context where it doesn't work as well? But then, I also think you over-apply that idea to internet discussions as well, so it's just something where we see the world differently. In this case there's probably no way to really know, so maybe you're right. Poorly thought out attempts at CYA seem far more in line with my experience of large corporations though.

With all the other stuff that's going on, I don't think it's unreasonable to take a pass at terms like Whitelist/Blacklist. Those terms pretty much imply White=Good and Black=Bad.

The important part it that there are lists of things (users/websites/etc.) that are granted or restricted access. It's also important to come up with a good descriptor for these lists. Black and White are terms that carry a lot of baggage right now. On top of that, those adjectives aren't really descriptive of the lists. The list itself isn't white or black, it depends on your UI. It's not a list of white or black things. It's a list of things that are allowed (allowlist) or denied (denylist).

Same with master/slave. Those terms are indeed descriptive of the relationship between the devices, but I've always thought the term "slave" felt a little odd. I don't think the other options in that article are any more eloquent. When we configure wireless radio networks, we usually use the terms "Master" and "Remote".

While we're in the process of revising antiquated standards, how about we come up with a new icon for "Save"? It might as well be an image of a punch-card. How about a pencil writing on a compact disc? - if you want to jump it forward to a device that was actually used 10 years ago.

Master/slave has been on the way out for a while.

Master branch all by itself is in debate right now.

Blacklist I dunno. Are they going to cancel the series, etc.?

And sanity check is just silly imo.

We frequently use master/worker a lot

Some of the others strike me as trying a little bit too hard.

In this specific context, yes. But the context here has nothing to do with race or skin color.

They are used in thousands of books, articles and lines of code though and are known to all programmers. Hey, lets make people rewrite their codebase and learn new technical terms every time some random group gets offended by something.

After reading that post I changed my mind. Get rid of the terms.

We made an effort to get rid of whitelist and blacklist about 2 years ago, and it’s fine. Master branch seems silly to me but I am white so I wouldn’t understand. I don’t think changing terms is a huge deal in general, so go nuts I say, but it feels like grasping at straws in terms of any kind of racial progress

Oh yeah another one was grooming meetings. We renamed those due to their connotation in pedo land

So I knew about most of these but had not thought about how the main branch in git is usually called master

And now I know why a bunch of stuff unexpectedly broke last week when some repos changed master to main

this cracks me up. I can think of so much **** that would break in my own organization.

I wish we had some better way of using version control for our PLC programs. Allen-Bradley will prompt you for revision notes when you save a file, but that's about it.

For our more proprietary PLC code, we have no standard of version control. I have explored the idea of uploading our files to github, since they can essentially be read as text files. Maybe I'll pioneer GitHub for my company and be heralded as the hero who drug people out of the Wild West and made their lives more complicated and annoying with no apparent improvement in everyday activity.

I'm totally on board with getting rid of things like whitelist/blacklist and master/slave. They're not even good names. You can choose more inclusive terms that are more descriptive. It's a no-brainer win-win to me.

I definitely wouldn't start a new repo / process using master for a branch name. Again, there are better options. Although I don't know if I'd really care about changing it in all cases. It feels like the effort may not be worth it (and if your company is willing to spend that time/effort, maybe it could be better spent elsewhere).

Renaming "grooming" meetings seems a bit bonkers. But I guess some people probably feel that way about my opinions here.

We never use master anyway. We use develop/stage/preprod and prod. Maybe pilot.

We use master on every damn microservice and have a million references to them in helm charts everywhere. God bless Kubernetes

It's just a dumb branch imo. Every other branch goes with an environment. But you never call an environment master. At my previous job we only pulled new code into master after it was in production for a while and totally stable. We used master as our rollback branch.

There are only two hard things in Computer Science: cache invalidation and naming things.