Reputation
28,763
Next tag badge:
83/100 score
28/20 answers
Badges
5 46 112
Newest
 Good Answer
Impact
~1.5m people reached

5m
comment Return object or dynamic from a method
This is .. truly terrible.
1d
awarded  Good Answer
2d
comment What do you call a function that's pure, meaning the same input will always return the same output, but also has side effects?
Your logging library should guarantee no deadlocks. Otherwise, you really need a new one.
2d
comment Shouldn't Java method parameters always be final
But... the callee can't mutate their variables. Hell, the caller may not even have a variable, it may be an expression.
2d
answered Shouldn't Java method parameters always be final
2d
comment What do you call a function that's pure, meaning the same input will always return the same output, but also has side effects?
@Basilevs The behaviour of the function isn't dependent on them at all. If the log write fails, you just carry right on.
2d
comment What do you call a function that's pure, meaning the same input will always return the same output, but also has side effects?
@AndresF. Well, you probably don't care about the literal number of times. You probably only care that it's logged as many times as the function was called.
2d
answered What do you call a function that's pure, meaning the same input will always return the same output, but also has side effects?
Apr
30
comment Are there any reasons not to ever use classes or ids anymore?
Gee, how could people use code whilst writing a program? How incredibly unthinkable! Finding the code is only the first step, you also have to fix it - all of it. It's better to simply not write such shit in the first place.
Apr
29
comment Ambient dependency injection through static service locator
An exceedingly trivial Google produced exceedingly obvious results, like stackoverflow.com/questions/24544272/…
Apr
29
comment Ambient dependency injection through static service locator
@John Call contexts are goddamn terrible. HttpContext.Current in ASP.NET is a blemish on the face of humanity that should be seared off with a laser beam. It's a hideously bad, lazy design that causes nothing but problems. HttpContext.Current is also not completely reliable (what a shocker!) we've had some cases in our controllers where we've had to hack around it missing once asynchronous controllers are involved. Not to mention that disgusting shit about ConfigureAwait(false). It's just terrible and broken and wrong.
Apr
28
answered Why isn't the overloading with return types allowed? (at least in usually used languages)
Apr
27
answered Is a global context stack a code smell?
Apr
24
comment Are there any reasons not to ever use classes or ids anymore?
Well, anybody anywhere can have a selector that references any id or classname, so you can't know that changing it is safe without knowing in advance that nobody else did that. So you must know the whole codebase before you can make the change.
Apr
22
comment Are there any reasons not to ever use classes or ids anymore?
My answer contains serious technical advice as well as a Jay-Z reference
Apr
22
answered Are there any reasons not to ever use classes or ids anymore?
Apr
22
comment Are there any reasons not to ever use classes or ids anymore?
That's ... a truly terrible approach to JS, since the classes and ids are effectively global mutable state.
Apr
21
answered Should I use nameof to avoid repetition in constants?
Apr
20
answered Should I check for nulls in setters and similar methods?
Apr
19
comment Could someone write an opensource version of the Windows API?
As for a Windows -> *nix example, frankly no, I prefer to avoid OS APIs whenever possible. But I believe that IOCPs are a lot superior and quite different to their *nix variants. For Ubuntu on Win10 most likely this either involves effectively a miniature VM, or they changed their process model to support fork(), or they just plain don't support forking programs.