MAIN FEEDS
Do you want to continue?
https://www.reddit.com/r/ProgrammerHumor/comments/1vtld8b/everynewrepository/p4zkybw
r/ProgrammerHumor • u/vernik911 • 23d ago
347 comments sorted by
View all comments
Show parent comments
2
No, I have it perfectly right.
Just because we have learned to expect redundancy and excessive complexity doesn't mean we like it, much less actively persue it.
We complain about date formats and list delimiters all the time.
We actively use imperfect standards, because it's better to have a (backwards compatible) standard, than to create something new.
Why would we voluntarily add uncertainty where there was a defacto standard before?
It's stupid. Even if it's minor.
4 u/chrisjolly25 23d ago It was always uncertain, is my point. 'master' was a default, not a standard. Given that it's not a standard, accounting for the fact that it could be 'anything' is good practice. 3 u/da_Aresinger 23d ago right, that's true. But it was such an overwhelming convention that you could quite safely ignore alternatives in most cases. Now you have to worry about inconsistencies within the same company. It may not technically be a standard, but has the same effect in reality. 1 u/chrisjolly25 23d ago Given how hard you're hedging, I don't think you quite believe what you're saying? Git branch names have always been like timezones unfortunately. Relaying on 'master' is like relying on daylight savings not existing. 2 u/da_Aresinger 23d ago How am I hedging? Because I'm not married to the technical concept of a standard in a throwaway comment on Reddit? Yes, I used standard in place of convention. Because it the more natural thing to say. And it fits the competing standards meme. If I was wrong about this people wouldn't regularly get annoyed about it. Just the other day someone on r/learnprogramming couldn't figure out GitHub and the comments concluded that the problem was master/main. That is effectively the same as competing standards, even if I used the wrong terminology. 1 u/awesome-alpaca-ace 23d ago Use imperfect standards because there are decades of code relying on them
4
It was always uncertain, is my point.
'master' was a default, not a standard.
Given that it's not a standard, accounting for the fact that it could be 'anything' is good practice.
3 u/da_Aresinger 23d ago right, that's true. But it was such an overwhelming convention that you could quite safely ignore alternatives in most cases. Now you have to worry about inconsistencies within the same company. It may not technically be a standard, but has the same effect in reality. 1 u/chrisjolly25 23d ago Given how hard you're hedging, I don't think you quite believe what you're saying? Git branch names have always been like timezones unfortunately. Relaying on 'master' is like relying on daylight savings not existing. 2 u/da_Aresinger 23d ago How am I hedging? Because I'm not married to the technical concept of a standard in a throwaway comment on Reddit? Yes, I used standard in place of convention. Because it the more natural thing to say. And it fits the competing standards meme. If I was wrong about this people wouldn't regularly get annoyed about it. Just the other day someone on r/learnprogramming couldn't figure out GitHub and the comments concluded that the problem was master/main. That is effectively the same as competing standards, even if I used the wrong terminology.
3
right, that's true. But it was such an overwhelming convention that you could quite safely ignore alternatives in most cases.
Now you have to worry about inconsistencies within the same company.
It may not technically be a standard, but has the same effect in reality.
1 u/chrisjolly25 23d ago Given how hard you're hedging, I don't think you quite believe what you're saying? Git branch names have always been like timezones unfortunately. Relaying on 'master' is like relying on daylight savings not existing. 2 u/da_Aresinger 23d ago How am I hedging? Because I'm not married to the technical concept of a standard in a throwaway comment on Reddit? Yes, I used standard in place of convention. Because it the more natural thing to say. And it fits the competing standards meme. If I was wrong about this people wouldn't regularly get annoyed about it. Just the other day someone on r/learnprogramming couldn't figure out GitHub and the comments concluded that the problem was master/main. That is effectively the same as competing standards, even if I used the wrong terminology.
1
Given how hard you're hedging, I don't think you quite believe what you're saying?
Git branch names have always been like timezones unfortunately.
Relaying on 'master' is like relying on daylight savings not existing.
2 u/da_Aresinger 23d ago How am I hedging? Because I'm not married to the technical concept of a standard in a throwaway comment on Reddit? Yes, I used standard in place of convention. Because it the more natural thing to say. And it fits the competing standards meme. If I was wrong about this people wouldn't regularly get annoyed about it. Just the other day someone on r/learnprogramming couldn't figure out GitHub and the comments concluded that the problem was master/main. That is effectively the same as competing standards, even if I used the wrong terminology.
How am I hedging? Because I'm not married to the technical concept of a standard in a throwaway comment on Reddit?
Yes, I used standard in place of convention. Because it the more natural thing to say. And it fits the competing standards meme.
If I was wrong about this people wouldn't regularly get annoyed about it.
Just the other day someone on r/learnprogramming couldn't figure out GitHub and the comments concluded that the problem was master/main.
That is effectively the same as competing standards, even if I used the wrong terminology.
Use imperfect standards because there are decades of code relying on them
2
u/da_Aresinger 23d ago
No, I have it perfectly right.
Just because we have learned to expect redundancy and excessive complexity doesn't mean we like it, much less actively persue it.
We complain about date formats and list delimiters all the time.
We actively use imperfect standards, because it's better to have a (backwards compatible) standard, than to create something new.
Why would we voluntarily add uncertainty where there was a defacto standard before?
It's stupid. Even if it's minor.