Uh, there are an absolute fuckload of Java libs out there with nothing more than auto-generated garbage Javadocs.

I dunno, plenty of those sound pretty reasonable.

It’s speed, but it’s also flow and a continuous stream of thought. If all your editing is being done with muscle memory and minimal thought, you can continue thinking about the problem at hand rather than interrupting your thoughts process to fumble through some context menu to make a change.

A language is not functional just because it supports higher order functions. Technically C even supports them (even though the ergonomics and safety of them are terrible). Would you call C a functional programming language? Obviously not. Rust is also not a functional language, even though it comes closer than most OO/imperative languages.

Kotlin and plenty of other OO languages have borrowed some ideas from functional languages in recent years because those ideas are useful. That doesn’t make them functional languages. If Kotlin were a functional language, then it wouldn’t need libraries like arrow to try to make doing FP in Kotlin even (kind of) possible.

Hallmarks of FP (beyond higher-order functions), in no particular order:

• Organization around functions as the fundamental unit of code
• Code primarily defined in terms of expressions and data transformations rather than statements manipulating object state (so languages that have big blocks of imperative statements like Kotlin don’t count)
• A general orientation around pure functions, even if they vary on the degree to which they enforce purity
• Explicit parameter passing being the standard and preferred way of providing data to functions, rather than methods operating on implicit state
• First class support for function composition (method chaining doesn’t count)
• Pattern matching and destructuring as a first-class and ubiquitous concept (what Kotlin does have is a joke comparatively and no one would actually call it that)
• For statically-typed functional languages, first class support for algebraic data types (Kotlin has sealed classes which can kind of be used to try to emulate it, but it’s pretty awkward in comparison and requires you to write very OO-ish code to use)

There are some minor exceptions, such as Clojure lacking pattern matching, but on the whole functional languages generally fit these descriptions.

That list also counts Java and C# as “functional languages”. I wouldn’t take it too seriously. Ocaml, Scala, F#, etc. are impure functional languages. Kotlin absolutely is not. Having a couple of features you might find in functional languages does not make a language functional. Kotlin is still very much an OOP-based language. It’s basically a somewhat nicer Java.

Minor nit: Kotlin is decidedly not a functional language.

Design patterns in OOP exist purely to solve the problems created by OOP itself. If you have a language with proper ADTs and higher order functions, the need for traditional design patterns disappear since the problems they solve are first-class features baked into the language.

The first-class replacement for the Strategy pattern (and many other patterns such as the Visitor pattern) is sum types (called enums in Rust).

All it means is if you were to reverse the order of the characters, you’d get the same string you started with. So “dog” isn’t a palindrome because when you reverse it, you get “god”. “dog god” is a palindrome, though, because if you read it backwards, it’s also “dog god”.

It’s not complicated at all: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palindrome. Not really something that’s education-specific, in this instance (though I suppose it’s commonly used in entry-level programming classes since it’s a simple concept).

After working at a company that had Crowdstrike installed on all machines, it is most certainly malware.

Why in the ever-loving fuck would it do that? My hatred of Go only continues to grow.

It has the return type declared to be double.

That’s what the If-Match header is for. It prevents this problem.

That being said, I generally think PUTs are preferable to PATCHes for simplicity.

It’s about making APIs more flexible, permissive, and harder to misuse by clients. It’s a user-centric approach to API design. It’s not done to make it easier on backend. If anything, it can take extra effort by backend developers.

But you’d clearly prefer vitriol to civil discourse and have no interest in actually learning anything, so I think my time would be better spent elsewhere.

As I already said, it’s very simple with JSON Patch:

[
  { *op": "replace", "path": "/Name™, "value": "otherName"}
]

Good practice in API design is to permissively accept either undefined or null to represent optionality with same semantics (except when using JSON Merge Patch, but JSON Patch linked above should be preferred anyway).

The semantics of the API contract is distinct from its implementation details (lazy loading).

Treating null and undefined as distinct is never a requirement for general-purpose API design. That is, there is always an alternative design that doesn’t rely on that misfeature.

As for patches, while it might be true that JSON Merge Patch assigns different semantics to null and undefined values, JSON Merge Patch is a worse version of JSON Patch, which doesn’t have that problem, because like I originally described, the semantics are explicit in the data structure itself. This is a transformation that you can always apply.

Zalando explicitly forbids it in their RESTful API Guidelines, and I would say their argument is a very good one.

Basically, if you want to provide more fine-grained semantics, use dedicated types for that purpose, rather than hoping every API consumer is going to faithfully adhere to the subtle distinctions you’ve created.

Only if using JSON merge patch, and that’s the only time it’s acceptable. But JSON patch should be preferred over JSON merge patch anyway.

Servers should accept both null and undefined for normal request bodies, and clients should treat both as the same in responses. API designers should not give each bespoke semantics.

Pretty dumb, honestly. If anything it just adds a Streisand effect to it as people try to figure out what’s censored.

Not that censoring it has any value whatsoever. Like if a child sees that, so fucking what?

Yeah it’s not all that uncommon in school, just increasingly uncommon in industry.

No, you divide work so that the majority of it can be done in isolation and in parallel. Testing components together, if necessary, is done on integration branches as needed (which you don’t rebase, of course). Branches and MRs should be small and short-lived with merges into master happening frequently. Collaboration largely occurs through developers frequently branching off a shared main branch that gets continuously updated.

Trunk-based development is the industry-standard practice at this point, and for good reason. It’s friendlier for CI/CD and devops, allows changes to be tested in isolation before merging, and so on.