• AggressivelyPassive@feddit.de
    29·
    17 days ago

    I have to say, I’m getting more and more frustrated by the bad code I have to write due to bad business circumstances.

    I want clean, readable code with proper documentation and at least a bit of internal consistency and not the shoehorned mess of hacks, todos and weird corner cases.

        • magic_lobster_party@kbin.run
          3·
          16 days ago

          It’s mostly a joke, but often when I find todos they’re so old they’re no longer relevant.

          Of course you shouldn’t blindly remove todos.

      • frezik@midwest.social
        1·
        16 days ago

        Don’t just put “TODO”. If they’re in the final pull request, they need to mention a ticket that’s intended to fix that TODO. If you/your team decides it’s not important, then remove it and close out the ticket. Either way, you’re required to do something with it.

  • anton@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    5·
    16 days ago

    Instead of

    if let Some(a_) = a{
    ()
} else if let Some(b_)=b{
    ()
} else {
    dostuff 
}

    you could just use

    if a.isNone()&&b.isNone(){
    dostuff
}

    Also if you don’t use the value in a match just use _

  • 82cb5abccd918e03@lemmygrad.ml
    3·
    17 days ago

    Doesn’t that construction only work in categories that also contain their own morphisms as objects since a profunctor maps (Cᵒᵖ × C) → Set and not the same like (Cᵒᵖ × C) → C? Since the category of Haskell types special, containing its own morphisms, so the profunctor could be like (haskᵒᵖ × hask) -> hask? or I just don’t understand it.

    • Kogasa@programming.dev
      1·
      17 days ago

      Hom functors exist for locally small categories, which is just to say that the hom classes are sets. The distinction can be ignored often because local smallness is a trivial consequence of how the category is defined, but it’s not generally true