The point isn't whether you use the GUI. The point is whether you are capable of doing your job without it. I'm not going to throw shade but personally I hate being at someone else's mercy - such as when the GUI breaks and I am forced to wait for someone else to fix it. One reason I stay away from the JavaScript browser/electron ecosystem is because there are so many opaque, inscrutable tools (namely bundlers and module resolvers) and I have no freaking clue how they work under the hood and they're virtually impossible to debug.
He also talks to investors and clients, but about business focused subjects vs tech focused subjects. Beyond that I'm fairly vague on what he does but I'm happy with that because it means I can keep my focus (mostly) on what I find interesting.
That first paragraph is basically my job now, except for the investors and clients part. We have an actual CTO so he gets to deal with all that crap and I can focus on the tech stuff.
My point is that Docker Desktop is entirely optional. On Linux you can run Docker Engine natively, on Windows you can run it in WSL, and on macOS you can run it in a VM with Docker Engine, or via something like hyperkit and minikube. And Docker Engine (and the CLI) is FOSS.
Cost: Docker licenses for most companies now cost $9/user/month
Are you talking about Docker Desktop and/or Docker Hub? Because plain old docker is free and open source, unless I missed something bug. Personally I've never had much use for Docker Desktop and I use GitLab so I have no reason to use Docker Hub.
monopoly: the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service.
GitHub is not a monopoly: it has competition. If you're upset about it's market share, switch to GitLab, Bitbucket, or host your own instance. If you're upset about people not being aware of the other options, be an advocate and spread awareness of the alternatives.
I absolutely detest leetcode style interview questions. I am good at solving problems and writing modular code. I am not good at writing search algorithms. Any guesses which one of those is more relevant to my job? 99% of development does not involve writing low level algorithms, because guess what someone else already did that for you, it's called a library!
As far as I'm concerned the advantage is I can have three windows (or three editor views) tiled horizontally and each one is the perfect width. A half width (half of 1080p/16:9) is too narrow and a full width window wastes space, but a 2/3 (of 1080p) width window is about perfect. If I tried to do that with two regular monitors, the middle window would be split across the bezel.
*When I say 1080p, I really mean the aspect ratio. My monitor is effectively a double width 1440p monitor, but with the display scaling I use the space is effectively 1080p.
I just share one window at a time. I put the meeting on one half and the window I want to share on the other, which makes it 16:9 and works perfectly for what I need to share.
I wonder how relevant this is to Go (which is what I work in these days), at least for simple data retrieval services. I can see how transforming code to a functional style could improve clarity, but Go pretty much completely eliminates the need to worry about threads. I can write IO bound code and be confident that Go will shuffle my routines between existing threads and create new OS threads as the existing ones are blocked by syscalls. Though I suppose to achieve high performance I may need to start thinking about that more carefully.
On the other hand, the other major component of the system I'm working on is responsible for executing business logic. It's probably too late to adopt a reactive programming approach, but it does seem like a more interesting problem than reactive programming for a data retrieval service.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding what "dependency injection" means. When I hear "dependency injection" I think of a DI framework such as Unity, so I thought "using DI" meant using one of those frameworks.
*grumble*. I dabbled in Scala a few years back and I am really grumpy every time I remember that Go doesn't have sum types, pattern matching, and the closed union of types construction you can create with an abstract final class in Scala. I loved that last one and used the heck out of it. I would love to have a compiler-enforced guarantee that a set of types was closed and could not be extended.
One of the reasons I love Go is that it makes it very easy to collect profiles and locate hot spots.
The part that seems weird to me is that these articles are presented as if it's a tool that all developers should have in their tool belt, but in 10 years of professional development I have never been in a situation where that kind of optimization would be applicable. Most optimizations I've done come down to: I wrote it quickly and 'lazy' the first time, but it turned out to be a hot spot, so now I need to put in the time to write it better. And most of the remaining cases are solved by avoiding doing work more than once. I can't recall a single time when a micro-optimization would have helped, except in college when I was working with microcontrollers.
If you're writing data processing code, there are real advantages to avoiding branches, and its especially helpful for SIMD/vectorization such as with AVX instructions or code for a GPU (i.e. shaders). My question is not about whether its helpful - it definitely is in the right circumstances - but about how often those circumstances occur.
Yes. It is still entirely possible to run VSCode or VSCodium locally without any of that cloud crap.