Given the stereotypical difficulty of “product folks” and programmers agreeing on and building shared understanding of what to build, this joke seems clear and straightforward. It works because of course, the customer and the programmer failed to agree on something simple.

New Dutch programming language just dropped.

Options have value.

Options expire.

🤷

You don’t even need the hyphen!

Mind = blown.

I assumed Python was unpopular in England, because programmers couldn’t spell __init__(). 🤷

I have settled into this pattern:

1. Name expands as I understand better the structural role of a thing. Duplication in names begins to become easier to spot.
2. Removing duplication in names means introducing helpful structures, resulting in shortening names again, particularly as the intent/purpose of thing becomes clearer.

Long names stay unnecessarily long when we don’t notice the patterns that suggest the missing structures.

The more examples of this kind of thing, the better!

(And my preferred name for that is rolesByEmployee. In general, “values by key”.)

I see that they’ve gone back to the name “The Daily WTF”. For some time, they changed to “Worse than failure” in order to avoid not even the word “fuck”. 🤷

https://thedailywtf.com/

Welcome! I guess this is your Ten Thousand moment for a mediocre joke for old programmers. 💪👍

What if role is FILE_NOT_FOUND?!

Good news, relatively speaking.

I’ve been where you are. Most important: don’t let yourself start to take responsibility for managerial decisions. If they want you to stand in the corner on your head and cluck like a chicken, it’s their money. 🤷 Don’t let that change how you see yourself as a programmer.

And roll your eyes in private.

Is this a problem for you or merely annoying? I mean the difference between you being blamed for their poor results and you merely being inconvenienced by doing extra work.

You might need to train yourself to accept the situation as it is and hope for someone in authority to make things better. It’s not easy, but this might be a good chance for you to build that skill. 🤷

Can you talk openly with your manager about this situation? Would it be helpful to you to propose to your manager that you help that group? Maybe your manager would appreciate your attempt at leadership.

Good luck.

Best Practices thinking considered harmful. 🤷

I like test names that are full sentences. Doing this for its own sake is unnecessary. It’s probably wise to practise this for a year, then decide when you still need it.

For me, quite often, a combination of the test group name (often naming a behavior) and test function name (often naming a special case of that behavior) suffices, even though it is not a full sentence. (Example: test class SellOneItem, test method productNotFound. Is this not clear enough?)

Test function names that merely repeatedly duplicate details (“conversion should…” to start 12 test names) indicate a test group trying to emerge (“Conversion Tests”). Insisting on full sentences for its own sake often either masks this risk (and delays helpful refactoring) or represents redundancy (merely reiterating what has been helpfully refactored).

I have found this attention to full sentence names most helpful for tests whose audience is not programmers, since those folks are not accustomed to common source code conventions and patterns. For Programmer Tests, I think “should” turns this helpful advice into a risky overstatement.

I applaud your plan. Have fun!

Yes! I raise you atuin.

Aha, yes. Somehow I forgot the difference interpretation for a moment. Oops!

I asked ChatGPT these questions and got sensible answers.

How much more is one half than one third?

[subtraction answer: 1/6 more]

That’s one possibility, but what about the other way to interpret that question?

[ratio answer, but expressed as “1.5 times as much” rather than “1/2 more”]

Oh. I just noticed the extraneous word in the search, which might be throwing off the LLM trying to understand it.

I agree with your assessment regarding the intention of the phrase. We’re back at the silly arithmetic meme that hinges on not grouping terms explicitly and watching people yell at each other in the mistaken belief that there’s one authoritative interpretation of an ambiguous string of symbols.

Still, the actual mistake remains. Why an extra 1/6 of the pizza? 1/3 of 1/3 is 1/9, not 1/6. That’s 1/2 of 1/3.

There are two meanings being conflated here.

“1/3 more” can mean “+ 1/3” or "* (1 + 1/3)“.

So “1/3 more than 1/3” could be 2/3 or 4/9, but not 1/2.

Instead 1/2 is 1/2 more than 1/3, not 1/3 more. That’s the meme I’ve seen go around recently.

1/3 more than 1/3 is 4/9. What you wrote is 1/2 more than 1/3, not 1/3 more of it.