• 344 Posts
Joined 1 year ago
Cake day: July 29th, 2023


  • Also, TIL that the IETF deprecated the X- prefix more than 10 years ago. Seems like that one didn’t pan out.

    Can you elaborate on that? The X- prefix is supposedly only a recommendation, and intended to be used in non-standard, custom, ah-hoc request headers to avoid naming conflicts.

    Taken from https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6648

    In short, although in theory the “X-” convention was a good way to avoid collisions (and attendant interoperability problems) between standardized parameters and unstandardized parameters, in practice the benefits have been outweighed by the costs associated with the leakage of unstandardized parameters into the standards space.

    I still work on software that extendively uses X- headers.

  • I don’t see why using submodules as a package manager should excuse their endless bugs.

    I don’t know what are these “endless bugs” you’re talking about. Submodules might have a UX that’s rough on the edges, but there are really no moving parts in them as they basically amount to cloning a repo and checking out a specific commit.

    Do you actually have any specific, tangible issue with submodules? Even in the cases you’re clearly and grossly misusing them

  • Aside from the obvious UX disaster, Git has some big issues:

    I find this blend of claims amusing. I’ve been using Git for years on end, with Git LFS and rebase-heavy user flows, and for some odd reason I never managed to stumble upon these so-called “disasters”. Odd.

    What I do stumble upon are mild annoyances, such as having to deal with conflicts when reordering commits, or the occasional submodule hiccup because it was misused as a replacement for a package manager when it really shouldn’t, but I would not call any of these “disasters”. The only gripe I have with Git is the lack of a command to split a past commit into two consecutive commits (a reverse of a squash commit), specially when I accidentally bundled changes to multiple files that shouldn’t have been bundled. It’s nothing an interactive rebase doesn’t solve, but it’s multiple steps that could be one.

    Can you point out what is the most disastrous disaster you can possibly conceive about Git? Just to have a clear idea where that hyperbole lies.

  • ccache folder size started becoming huge. And it just didn’t speed up the project builds, I don’t remember the details of why.

    That’s highly unusual, and suggests you misconfigured your project to actually not cache your builds, and instead it just gathered precompiled binaries that it could not reuse due to being misconfigured.

    When I tried it I was working on a 100+ devs C++ project, 3/4M LOC, about as big as they come.

    That’s not necessarily a problem. I worked on C++ projects which were the similar size and ccache just worked. It has more to do with how you’re project is set, and misconfigurations.

    Compilation of everything from scratch was an hour at the end.

    That fits my usecase as well. End-to-end builds took slightly longer than 1h, but after onboarding ccache the same end-to-end builds would take less than 2 minutes. Incremental builds were virtually instant.

    Switching to lld was a huge win, as well as going from 12 to compilation 24 threads.

    That’s perfectly fine. Ccache acts before linking, and naturally being able to run more parallel tasks can indeed help, regardless of ccache being in place.

    Surprisingly, ccache works even better in this scenario. With ccache, the bottleneck of any build task switches from the CPU/Memory to IO. This had the nice trait that it was now possible to overcommit the number of jobs as the processor was no longer being maxed out. In my case it was possible to run around 40% more build jobs than physical threads to get a CPU utilization rate above 80%.

    I was a linux dev there, the pch’s worked, (…)

    I dare say ccache was not caching what it could due to precompiled headers. If you really want those, you need to configure ccache to tolerate them. Nevertheless it’s a tad pointless to have pch in a project for performance reasons when you can have a proper compiler cache.

  • the whole point of agile is to be short term

    Not really. The whole point of Agile is to iterate. This means short development cycles which include review and design rounds to adapt to changes that can and will surface throughout the project. The whole point of Agile is to eliminate problems caused by business, project, and technical goals not changing because planning is rigid and can’t accommodate any changes because the process does not have room for those.

    This is why this whole “things need to be planned” crowd are simply talking out of ignorance. Agile requires global planning, but on top of this supports design reviews along the way to be able to face changing needs. This requires planning in short-medium-long terms.

    Don’t blame Agile for your inability to plan. No one forces you not to plan ahead.

  • The primary problem is using agile all the time instead of when it is actually intended to be used: short term work that needs to be done quickly by a small team that are all on the same page already.

    I think you got it entirely backwards.

    The whole point of Agile is being able to avoid the “big design up front” approach that kills so many projects, and instead go through multiple design and implementation rounds to adapt your work to the end goal based on what lessons you’re picking up along the way.

    The whole point is improving the ability to deliver within long term projects. Hence the need to iterate and to adapt. None of these issues pose a challenge in short term work.

  • I’ve been working with Agile for years and I worked with people who burned out, but there was not even a single case where Agile contributed to burning out, directly or indirectly. In fact, Agile contributed to unload pressure off developers and prevent people from overworking and burning out.

    The main factors in burning out we’re always time ranges from the enforcement of unrealistic schedules and poor managerial/team culture. It’s not Agile’s fault that your manager wants a feature out in half the time while looming dismissals over your head.

    It’s not Agile’s fault that stack ranking developers results in hostile team environments where team members don’t help out people and even go as far as putting roadblocks elsewhere so that they aren’t the ones in the critical path. Agile explicitly provides the tools to make each one of these burnout-inducing scenarios as non-issues.