Teams does actually have a sound cue when people join calls: high-pitched repeated beeps that most people can't hear due to presbycusis, and the few who do hear it think they're going crazy.
The author should look into Koka. As I see it, Koka is at the bleeding edge of effect handling, which is why the async Rust team has taken some nibbles of inspiration from it. Alas, Rust as a whole is far too cemented to overhaul everything for generic effect support, but at least it's been beneficial for async.
Love it. Great lesson on why applicative exists, how it would/should look in C++ and discussion on prior/ongoing proposals.
I would call those language-specific. While they are useful in more than one language, they are also replaced by language features in many languages.
- Builder pattern can be simplified with kwargs (Python, C#) or argument objects (JS, C++).
- Factory pattern can be simplified with first-class types (Lisp, Haskell).
- Visitor pattern is similarly simplified by first-class functions (supported by most languages nowadays).
- Dependency injection of concept X is generally simplified by first-class X. I think the least widely supported is dependency injection of effects (Koka).
Design patterns are typically just workarounds for the limitations of the chosen programming language. What you might consider a pattern in C might just be a simple language feature in C++, and the patterns in C++ (as popularized by GoF) might just be language features in Lisp/Rust/whatever.
So rather than thinking about patterns, you should first choose the right language for the task. If you're working on a parser, you might prefer Haskell. If you need formal verification, there's C and Idris and little inbetween. If you need to hire lots of developers, something widely-known like JS might be the choice.
After you've chosen a language, you can identify the things that the language is bad at and apply the appropriate design patterns. Sometimes the patterns can be found in books (C++, Java) and sometimes it's just tribal knowledge (D).
Regular expressions are great and can always be matched in linear time with respect to the input string length.
The problem is that JS standard library RegExps aren't actually regular expressions, but rather a much broader language, which is impossible to implement efficiently. If RegExp switched to proper regular expressions, they would match much faster but supporting backreferences like /(.*)x\1/ would be impossible.
I appreciate that the talk focuses more on automated approaches to safety this time. I feel the past years' talks were much more focused on goading developers to follow core guidelines, which doesn't really work in industry.
Very nice. I remember looking up some of these details from StackOverflow years ago, but this blows those answers away.
It would be much easier to read if it was actually table, i.e., if hex codes and the characters were separated into their own columns.
My workplace has the opposite problem.
The company has been in dire need of programmers for years, so they hired people (including myself) without tests. However, the work involves lots of custom iterators and the occasional handcrafted parser, which most of the company is incapable of writing. The bright side is that management has their metrics mostly right, so I'm getting lots of raises for solving fun problems.
I recommend Pyright over Mypy if you don't mind it being owned by Microsoft. It has far fewer bugs, and if you do stumble on one, you don't have to fix it yourself because Microsoft's paid devs will fix it in a couple of working days (at least for the small bugs I've reported).
I do very little coding, but it's because our workplace has an abundance of junior developers, not because I'm pressed for time. My work is essentially just turning emails into technical specifications that others can implement and tutoring juniors when there are problems. Few to no pointless meetings because I insist on using emails or tickets whenever possible.