The entire web platform is a mess because of an unclear complain about configuration? You could at least try being specific if you’re going to make such stark claims.
Going off of the dot net core 5 release thread, I assume it’s because of misunderstanding or lack of familiarity with the platform. There was a very confused top level comment that seemed to be complaining about DI and dependency drilling down several layers. That’s just not using DI at all. In general DI is a great pattern that encourages lose coupling and testability, so I also don’t get the complaint.
If you're talking about my comment, you couldn't be further from the truth.
I've actually worked with C# for over 15 years now and written apps with (in order of age) VBScript, webforms, web services (the MS SOAP stuff), MVC 1, MVC 2, MVC 3, MVC 4, Web API, Web API 2, the OData one I forget the name of and asp.net core. Oh and Silverlight. I've probably missed something. On yeah, WCF. And even WWF! Basically EVERYTHING web-related to C#. Plus enough work in PHP, Python, Ruby, Express, etc. to be able to compare different approaches. And even sometimes VB.net, I've maintained and then migrated entire code-bases from that to C#.
I'm not entirely sure what more familiarity I need?
I'd also note that there are a lot of other people agreeing with my in that thread, almost all of whom show a decent technical understanding. And it's got a lot of upvotes.
But, even if I "misunderstood" or have a "lack of familiarity", that speaks of how poor the design/documentation actually is. If you can so easily shoot yourself in the foot with it, it's not fit for purpose.
None of that is familiarity with DI, which wasn't as prominent or included in the framework itself until .NET Core. Perhaps it's just not a fit for you.
Again, none of that means familiarity with DI. Why deflect about the language? This has nothing to do with C#.
You never answered what your actual issue with DI is (the concept, implementation, containers, etc), or what your alternative would be, even though numerous people have asked. That makes your complaint seem largely unfounded or a combination of confusion and lack of experience with DI.
Not the OP, but I never used .NET core, but used DI pretty heavily for most of my 15 years writing C#. It was there before .NET Core. Maybe you mean it's improved with .NET Core?
"wasn't as prominent or included in the framework itself"
There was no built-in DI container before, you had to use your own like Windsor/Autofac/Ninject/etc, and it wasn't as popular because of it as many people skipped it for smaller/less enterprise projects. I'd say exposing more people do it, even if the built-in DI is rather basic, helped improve many new projects that otherwise might not have chosen to do so.
I don’t know if it was your comment, but you can tell me you’re the queen of Scotland for all I care. Just look at your complaint above in this thread about DI and how no one can make sense of it. If you have so much experience you hide it well.
Funny, I've just checked those comments and again, a bunch of people agreeing with me. Are you wearing your "I can only see comments that back my biases" glasses?
To me, it's clear that some people love DI. SOME. Use it if you want. I don't want to. Stop dictating what's "good" code to experienced developers.
Yeah, I can see the thread just fine, I can also see the majority of posters and the more substantive posters disagreeing with you. Also the only person who comes close to dictating anything here is you.
And I’m still not seeing the benefit of all that experience by the way.
Yeah, most men who use them feel this way. I met a guy one time who claimed he had been active on tinder for a year and hadn’t gotten one match. Granted he wasn’t much of a looker but that’s just rough.
Expectation mismatch is real. Unless you pay so you can see what “lowering your standards” could bring (by looking at people who liked you even though you didn’t like them), you can go ages without ever matching, or matching with dead profiles who will never answer.
I would say that it involves unlearning the bad lessons that Hollywood, TV, and advertisements teach you about love.
Being happy in a relationship is not about somehow managing to trick someone into being with you, nor is it about somehow lifting yourself up to the standards of masculinity / femininity you see in media.
One of the rather bleak theories that has come out of the Red Pill / men's rights movements is that women develop this sense of entitlement because:
1. Attractive / high value men are happy to sleep with less attractive women they wouldn't consider as 'relationship material'.
2. Women are generally more sexually liberated so there's an increasing chance they will have had several of these encounters, and therefore believe they are entitled to men of the same level (also known as becoming an 'alpha widow').
Like most of these theories it's pretty depressing to contemplate, but I'm yet to see a convincing refutation of it.
The most depressing outcome of it is that a man will eventually marry a woman who ranks him at the bottom 50% of the people she had a romantic relationship with.
I can not tell who is going to be the most miserable in such relationship. My guess is the woman, who will not be able to understand how "she settled like that, since she could do so much better". In the best case scenario, the man will be oblivious of the fact, so probably he will be unaffected.
Absolutely, it's a horrible thing to contemplate. As a single man who is not very successful with women, I'm equally afraid of this outcome as I am of being alone forever. Perhaps even more.
I would love to find a way of coming to terms with this that doesn't involve adopting the full red pill attitude of "never get married, all women are like that" etc
On the positive side, this probably means that the average man will marry a woman in the top50% of the romantic relationships he has had in the past. So you can focus on that thought. :)
Of course, this is possible because the average man will have far fewer relationships than the average woman. So in the end the numbers for this imaginary couple will look like:
For the man: He will marry then number 2 mate out of a total of 5.
For the woman: She will marry the number 10 mate out of a total of 15.
Obviously the numbers are totally made up, but you get the point.
So be positive! When you will settle, your mate will probably exceed your expectations.
It’s interesting that girls start at the top and get rejected down to their compromise level. Men start at the bottom and rise up to catch the falling girls. I am not sure either is better off or worse. Also you can look at other things... rank people on ability to cook, sing, solve puzzles, money, humor, cleanliness, optimism, generosity. Also even if you are hung up on number of or looks of mates, you can lower your standards, pay for it...
Best is to find your own self esteem. Whoever gets your company and attention is lucky, because you chose to give it to them and no one else...
It’s just you in the Boltzmann brain... no one else means anything. Also the universe is big, really big. And the block universe is here all at once. You can’t really change anything... we don’t know anything. What were we talking about again ?
Even though it would get terrible press and PR, a "no surprises" dating site where height and weight and photo are verified would go a long way to solving some of these problems. This way people can swim in their lanes, without wasting other people's time.
The phrase "swim in their lanes" riles me in this context. While a photo and some basic personal data would help, dating is not an activity where social cooperation between competing parties is needed to ensure a better outcome. And there's no pool attendant either. It's not up to you to decide who gets to date whom.
> dating is not an activity where social cooperation between competing parties is needed to ensure a better outcome
I'm not sure if I agree. From the perspective of the dating site you'd be right, the longer people are unable to find the kind of relationship that they want, the better it is for their business. However, from the point of view of the people looking for dates, if people are shown little to no profiles where it's highly unlikely that a relationship will happen, and shown mostly profiles where matches are likely, regardless of their stated preferences, and thus response rates and relationship likelihood rises, that seems like it can be a better outcome to me.
It's not about that, it's about the phrasing "swim in your lane". That means imposing social rules, and belittling people who behave differently. Taken in extremis, it can be interpreted as: ugly should only date ugly.
No, you're misinterpreting it, maybe even projecting your own insecurities. Nobody said you have to date fit / thin people - just that people shouldn't lie / pretend about it. You have a fetish on fatties? Set the weight filter up high. This is clearly superior to the current model, where it's easy for people to lie about weight/age/height/income/...
The real criticism of this model is completely different, and much deeper. People don't actually know what they want and who would make them happy, and they often conform / default to social conventions in their public preferences - e.g. maybe you want to filter out 10+ older men because you don't want to go on dates with "creepy" dudes, or you want to filter out fat women because you don't want your friends to judge you - even though in reality, you might actually be happier with those matches, or, more likely, those attributes are often orthogonal to your actual happiness.
Wouldn’t help, the same numbers breakdown would occur, people would still be unhappy as a consequence, it would just be more up front. Well, it’s the world people want, hope they like it.
I’m convinced that most of the users on this site are sitting in their house that they rent with eight other people in their underwear eating beans out of a can.
It only gets you a ~1.5m mortgage, extremely high savings rate, access to private schools, all while living in one of the most beautiful and desirable metropolitan areas in the world.
And what does a $1.5m mortgage get you in the peninsula? Maybe 1000-1200sqft? How lavish...
You don't get an extremely high savings rate either in terms of ratios (unless you live a very economical lifestyle (small apartments/rooms, old/no car, etc.)).
Monthly take-home pay for $450k is ~$21k in California
Monthly mortgage payment for $1.5m is ~$6.5k
Remaining money for literally everything else, almost none of which is more expensive in California: $17.5k, or $210k per year. You could eat out every single night and buy a new BMW twice a year, and still save more than 20% of your take-home pay.
Not only that, but we're talking about salaries for ONE SINGLE PERSON. Married in tech? We're talking a $900k annual salary. Calling this lifestyle "very economical" is so insanely out of touch with how most people live their lives, it's no wonder tech people are hated as completely out of touch.
Edit: Changed $24k to $21k, the calculator I used didn't include state taxes even though California was the chosen state.
You're not including taxes - no one cares about mortgage in itself. If you include taxes, it's closer to $8k and then you gotta get insurance (which is going to vary wildly by thousands based on where the home is located). If you're unfortunate with taxes + insurance, your monthly payments could end up being as high as $9-10k/month.
> Not only that, but we're talking about salaries for ONE SINGLE PERSON. Married in tech? We're talking a $900k annual salary. Calling this lifestyle "very economical" is so insanely out of touch with how most people live their lives, it's no wonder tech people are hated as completely out of touch.
Sure - if you can manage to get two 1%'er people together then you'll be living the high life but that's not something you should take as common place. Same with assuming that they'll both be working for their entire life before 65. That's like saying, "Imagine if you were Mark Zuckerberg and then married Mark Zuckerberg!!! You'd be doubly rich!"
Btw - if you're at that income - you have to save at least 25% of your net income for retirement and hopefully you do that at a very early age (like 30-35, if you're starting that savings rate at 45 then you're fucked). Social security won't even pay your property tax when you're retired. So, if you expect to live anywhere near your current lifestyle in retirement... you have to save a lot more (percentage wise) than most Americans.
I'm not saying you'll be poor but go look at what house you can get in a decent peninsula neighborhood for $1.5mil. You won't be impressed. You'll have a nice car and can afford some niceties but what you come home to will be a piece of shit compared to your income. e.g. https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/856-15th-Ave-Menlo-Park-C...
> Well, $450,000 a year doesn't get you far in the bay area.
Even if that was true, which it's really not, it's especially not true if you consider the extended radius from which people commute into the Bay Area.
Of course. These conspiracies depend on how schizotypical people are. People who are more “fantasy prone” are more likely to believe in magic, the supernatural, aliens and various other kinds of woo. It’s hardly surprising that hippie types should be included - what is the fundamental difference between believing in crystal healing and laylines and believing qanon? There’s no rational basis for either.
> I would encourage you to re-evaluate your position as if you voiced those opinions in an interview with basically anyone I know you would quickly get passed up in favor someone that actually knows what they are talking about.
Ha. Now we’re introducing threats. Don’t agree with my technical opinions? You’ll never work in this town again! Funny, funny stuff.
Unfortunately he's somewhat right. Not because the interviewers necessarily know wtf they're talking - they probably don't. But going against the current hype in an interview can only hurt your chances. Liking something like GraphQL, or React, or Framework Of The Month can't really hurt you even if your interviewer doesn't like it. But not liking it can be a real issue! I would suggest at least staying neutral on the current hype stacks in an interview. It's like debating religion - don't go there...
You would expect to be able to have a discussion of the pros and cons, and recognition at the least that other approaches are viable.
> React is a hype stack now?
Yeah, kinda. You definitely need some sort of front end framework, but I feel like there should be something better than react. I use react every day and it’s fine, but I’m waiting for something else to come and take it’s dominant position.
Idk, a lot of the back office apps I build are basically glorified forms with some content pages / dashboard. You really don't always need a framework.
I build apps for living and hiring a svelte dev is not going to happen. Stick to react and go hiking on the weekends with the guys in your svelte meetup.
We're a GraphQL town, buddy. You take your [use of literally any technology which isn't GraphQL, because GraphQL is the best, because nothing else needs to be used anymore] and gtfo of here.
It wasn't a threat, just a suggestion that denigrating some extremely useful tech that is saving organizations tons of time and money may not be a winning career strategy.
