I have so many questions. What are you trying to accomplish? Is this clickbait? Even if it is, why is this more interesting than what I thought the video was going to be about? What kind of black magic or deal with the devil did you need in order to get this into my recommended? What is wrong with me that I’m so engaged about all of it? Are you even the person in the video? Is this a complete accident that you mislabeled the video entirely and created an absolute phenomenon in my mental perspective and perception? And above all else, why is this monetized? Does RU-vid endorse whatever just happened to me? I feel mildly used but I’m desperate to learn more.
In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Compassionate, and praise be to God, Lord of the worlds. You, O Lord, who wanted to give Steve Jobs knowledge, gave him knowledge that you did not give to anyone of your creation. I beg you to have mercy on him and forgive his sins. I put on the iPad a huge amount of the voices of the Holy Qur’an reciters, and next to the Holy Qur’an I store a huge amount of music, so for the sake of what YOU LORD gave him this knowledge, I BECAME VERY SPIRTUAL OUT STORING Holy Qur’an REITERS, so PLEASE forgive him and make his grave a garden from the gardens of paradise, Ameen, Ameen, Ameen
It's impossible to get devs to stop doing this in my experience. However much I push back on useless abstractions, our code base gets littered with unreadable code that has a bunch of arguments and props that make no sense. But I work in frontend... clean code is non-existent most of the time.
I don't understand what kind of abstraction he it talking about. Real world example would be great. Im hard core dry practicioner and I've never had a problem with abstractions. The most powerful strategy in programming is to write functions, classes, modules etc that do one thing only. If you use ifs inside abstraction it becomes place to dump anything you couldn't find place anywhere else. Good abstraction doesn't have conditions or exceptions. They're specialized and serve as simple interface to complex things.
It’s pretty common, I’m surprised you haven’t run into it. I often see it with sending emails or slack messages from an application. There are two or more things that need to send messages but since they’re both using email to do it someone will DRY it to be one send email thing and eventually it’s littered with many switches or if/elses to support the various things it needs to do. All because having duplicate email code wouldn’t be DRY.
@@JollyGiant19 Never hit on it either. In my career I was having multiple projects having the exact same abstraction you are talking about - either by a library or a microservice. And never ever needed to add conditionals in the abstraction. It needs to send emails - simple as that. I can clearly remember the latest such abstraction. The class, let's name it, `MailSender` is configured with SMTP credentials. The function `send(...)` accepts recipient and message (or any abstraction over message like template or smth like that). The Library of course can be extended adding several adapters, like the default implementation could be SMTPMailSender, but you may have ExternalServiceMailSender which is let's say subclassed to SendGridMailSender, MailChimpMailSender and so on. But I don't see this subclassing as conditionals, even if it is introduced later in the library, when some consumer incepted the need. It just makes the library more feature-rich.
The guiding principle I try to use when deciding whether to create an abstraction from similar code is to determine whether the code is *intrinsically* the same or *coincidentally* the same. If it is *intrinsically* the same, then it must always do the same thing in all places. If it is *coincidentally* the same, then it may do the same thing now, but could diverge in the future. Only code that is *intrinsically* the same should be combined. It's a similar thought process to what makes a good class, the "one reason to change" maxim.
Although implicitely shown, it would be worth mentioning the dependency hell problem explicitely. It is one of the biggest problems I see in all recent projects, where I joined into.
Good abstractions are well encapsulated, pure and couple loosely to the rest of the program, ergo they are easy to swap out. Data types/objects are the major bottleneck when it comes to changing the code I write because everything that consumes that data needs to be informed about those changes. Getting the data model right from the jump is hard AF and if you don't pay careful attention to it, the result is spaghettification and/or lasagna as additional features are added. In lining is just a band aid solution, the core problem is a fragile data model.
And today Spotify, Apple Music, and others have interfaces that are pre-filled and heavily front-loaded with playlists made by corporate DJs. Great words, but times have changed.
I don't know if inlining all 3 uses of the original abstraction was deserved. I think that good abstractions should have a good fit to the problem space, so that you don't need effort to use them correctly. If adding functionality / API surface starts to make the abstraction hairy, it's a sign that the new use case should have a different abstraction *even if it's very similar*. I mean, hey, an array and a linked list are very similar except for this 1 small thing, that we could parametrize, right?
Just sharing my thoughts: If an abstraction has to be modified (to solve a bug) and it affects negatively/breaks much of the code that depends on it, then the abstraction is not well made. Abstraction is not actually a good thing when badly done; however to be well done it often has to be refactored (very cleanly!) when new cases arise, (and as he said multiple times, no one has time to refactor..), that's one of the problems. Because if it's done well, then it's not and Abstraction anymore, it becomes an Abstract generalization, which makes a big difference, because it's a generalization, everything is a general case, there are no special cases in an abstract generalization. Usually the best way is not to try to change the abstraction directly, it's to copy paste, do the alternate code, make it work well and then refactor later when everythign works very well to merge the alternat cases as general cases; but it takes time. The problem is trying to abstract as soon as there are two 'more or less' identical codes. Just wait, if it's two times, it can stay like that, it's not much overhead, if it goes to 3, 4, 5, 6 ;) Then it's time to figrue out the common behvaiour between all those copies and generalize those away. As such the abstraction won't be started too early when other use cases are not well known (and might never exist!). He didn't say it, but abstracting too early (when only two use cases are known) is also a big culprit of bad abstractions, the general/commo behaviour is not fully known at such an early stage. In Dan Abramovs example, had they waited a bit more, they would have come to a point where, ok, we have three times the same code, sometimes it's async, sometimes not. That already changes how one will decide to start abstracting (they started too early, clearly, only with two use cases). Then also leave the rest that's not fully understood (how to become abstracted in a neat way) as inlined code, so that the specific cases would have remained specific cases until there were enough of them to see the common pattern and abstract it away correctly again (or not.. if the cases are too divergent). I personally usually wait to see at least 3-4 times the same repeated code, to tell myself, ok, something is clearly common here :) We shouldn't start too early, it's software, it can be modified later, unlike hardware where there's really a problem if it's not done right at the beginning ;)
Exactly no radio , You have to use our set apps we give you we're eliminate the earphone jack we're going to force you to buy ours or try Jack the price up higher than everyone else's earphone buds guy is so full it
That's a bit of a reach though... Jobs and Apple have several time "denied" customers technology that they do ask for, prioritizing profits. Nothing wrong with that though, just not the most customer-focused of choices.
@@trashyraccoon2615 Apple Lisa and MacIntosh both failed hard. The G4 Cube failed hard. The imac g4 failed. G5 PowerMac failed. Maps from Apple was horrible at first. Member, when Jobs thought, nobody would need apps on the iphone because web 2.0 applications? People, especially from the usa tend to idealize Jobs. Really don't know why though. He had his share of bad decisions.
You don't know what you are talking about. He had cancer since his mid 20's, he literally was able to expand his lifespan with his vegetarian/vegan diet. Name me ONE thing modern medicine that would have been helpful to Jobs.
@@InspiriumESOO But to the point , it was very ironic that a person who was so pro science and technology advancement, ended up refusing to be cured by it.
@@InspiriumESOO Steve Jobs was diagnosed with cancer in October 2003. He was 48 years old at the time. I discovered that by doing a 30 second search. So try a little harder when you make stuff up. And all of his vegan diets and magic water did nothing to help.
@@InspiriumESOO The point here is that he did not even try it.... And yes, there are many cases of people who have cured from cancer with medicine and therapy.
Dear Steve Jobs, I am thinking about lightsignals in combination to data-transmission, but we still have to considerer 1 and 0 to transmit data. But is it possible to reflect the data with mirrors to transmition, so 1 and 0 is not needed anymore. Kind regards.
So we at Apple decided to not chase the customer and get them a radio replacement. You know, instead of giving them what we want (because the retail model is through the roof), we give them what they need. Annnnn, at the end of the day we try to deliver them another ipod. (nods head)
Every human should understand IBM in not their company. Similarly Apple next Microsoft etc. Similarly government should understand it is not their country. That's why problems. Especially Russia should never think. They have to understand it is an establishment colony. Some of the country like Poland was a society.
There was a feature back in early RU-vid that gave you the option to auto-stabilize your video, but it wasn't very good at doing it with many videos. This is one such case, and is why you don't see many videos like this anymore.
TO YOU READING THIS , I PRAY THAT ONE DAY YOU WILL REACH YOUR DREAMS. ALWAYS KNOW THAT THE SECRET OF YOUR FUTURE IS HIDDEN IN YOUR DAILY ROUTINE. SUCCESSFUL PEOPLE DO DAILY WHAT THE UNSUCCESSFUL DO ONLY ON OCCASIONALLY. Risk and time are opposite sides of the same coin, for if there were no tomorrow there would be no risk. Time transforms risk, and the nature of risk is shaped by the time horizon: the future is the playing field. Those who leave early are saved, but the ball is so splendid that no one wants to leave while there is still time, so that everyone keeps asking, ‘What time is it? What time is it?’ But none of the clocks have any hands.
Hello,I’m new to forex trade and i have been making huge losses but i recently see alot of people earning from it.Can someone pleas tell me what I’m doing wrong
