AggressivelyPassive

Das riecht mir doch sehr nach Beschönigung.

Doch, aber Nazis sind immer die anderen.

Wer Achmed den Schädel eintritt ist kein Nazi, weil der Achmed uns ja umvolkt, wegen den Nazis in der Regierung und deswegen sind wir quasi ein Volk ohne Raum!

Muss man wissen!!

Es war eine komische Welt, damals in den frühen 2000ern.

Gab’s nicht noch so eine Serie mit blauen Menschen/Aliens die in Computern gelebt haben?

Wife of a friend as well. She’ll bend and “interpret loosely” every rule in her favor, but if someone else is doing the same, she gets mad and thinks it’s cheating.

That’s decades of legacy for you…

I bet each step/arrow/decision had a good reason at some point, but most of them probably back when computers lived in caves and hunted their tapes using spears and rocks.

I feel like we’re slowly reaching a point where the complexity is collapsing in on itself - just look at the absolute chaos a modern web app is.

Prudes…

Java’s Duke just stands there, fully nude and is giving NullPointerException fucks.

Every system will get gamed by bad actors.

At least in my case, I can’t come up with a system that doesn’t suffer from these problems, but still keeps corruption in check.

For example, I was in a bidding process for my own software. Our contract has a legal time limit, afterwards it has to be renewed using the same bidding process as the first time. It makes perfect sense for us not to rewrite our software - it’s working just fine after all. But legally, we’re bidding on rebuilding the entire thing, have to compete with laughably low offers from all over Europe, and when we won the contract we decide, almost by accident, to keep using the old software, but on a very tight budget.

The pragmatic thing would have been, to just extend our contract, but that could mean endless contracts to extremely high prices for software that just happens to be embedded deep enough to be irreplaceable.

No good solution, really.

Maybe because the original post seems awfully arrogant, if you don’t know the context - and the post didn’t provide any context.

I’ve seen a ton of responses like yours. You’re implying that everyone gets the context, if they don’t, you assume everything is “hostile” if it’s not the exact line of thought you happen to support.

Accept that other people live different lives from yours and have different experiences and knowledge.

As a software engineer, this applies to my entire industry as well.

I’m forced to write subpar software, sometimes with atrocious security simply because some idiot set an unrealistic budget.

The worst part is, my current projects are all government funded. The German government implemented processes to prevent corruption, which force unhealthy competition and backhand corruption onto the bidders, which then churn out bad software, which causes gigantic costs down the line, because nothing works. Great job.

Das ist immer so. Guck ins dritte Reich, da waren Juden auch simultan wertlose Untermenschen und trotzdem hinterhältige Strippenzieher, die die ganze Welt kontrollieren.

Hintergrund ist ganz einfach, dass der Gegner eine Gefahr darstellen muss, damit jede Gewalt Selbstverteidigung und damit legitim ist, aber gleich muss er Gegner auch dehumanisiert werden, weil man sich sonst ja fragen müsste, ob man nicht zurecht “unten” ist.

Or requires a timestamp with zone offset, but ignores the zone offset, so you have to send the timestamp itself with a zone offset of zero relative to the systems timezone, but can’t just omit the zone offset, because it’s required.

Again, did you actually read the comments?

Is SQL an API contract using JSON? I hardly think so.

Java does not distinguish between null and non-existence within an API contract. Neither does Python. JS is the weird one here for having two different identifiers.

Why are you so hellbent on proving something universal that doesn’t apply for the case specified above? Seriously, you’re the “well, ackshually” meme in person. You are unable or unwilling to distinguish between abstract and concrete. And that makes you pretty bad engineers.

Did you read the comments above?

You can’t just ignore context and proclaim some universal truth, which just happens to be your opinion.

Nope.

If there’s a clear definition that there can be something, implicit and explicit omission are equivalent. And that’s exactly the case we’re talking about here.

The German feddit (and reddit) space has bursts of memes. A while ago it was stupid puns using sturgeons or eels. Currently it’s pizza.

These intense meme storms (Stahlmemegewitter) last for a few days and then blow over.

That’s exactly not the thing, because nobody broke the contract, they simply interpret it differently in details.

Having a null reference is perfectly valid json, as long as it’s not explicitly prohibited. Null just says “nothing in here” and that’s exactly what an omission also communicates.

The difference is just whether you treat implicit and explicit non-existence differently. And neither interpretation is wrong per contract.

It can, but especially during serialization Java sometimes adds null references to null values.

That’s usually a mistake by the API designer and/or Java dev, but happens pretty often.

Aber wer kauft sich denn noch gedruckte Zeitungen? Das sind doch nur Rentner und Menschen, die am Bahnhof dem Zug WLAN nicht trauen.

Ist dann aber auch ein bisschen selbsterfüllende Prophezeiung. Warum sollte ich für den Spiegel zahlen, wenn es 20% DPA Printout und 80% billiger Müll ist.

Natürlich gibt es auch gute Artikel, aber die gehen even unter.

Ganz einfach, trickle down economics.

Wenn die großen Autos ein paar Jahre alt und abgeschliffen sind, können sich die armen über tolle Kleinwagen freuen!