dandi8

joined 5 months ago
[–] dandi8@fedia.io 1 points 4 months ago (2 children)

This sounds like the devs are personally, sword and shield in hand, defending the application from attacks, instead of just writing software which adheres to modern security practices, listening to the Security Officer and occasionally doing an audit.

[–] dandi8@fedia.io 6 points 4 months ago

This comment smells of outdated software development practices.

[–] dandi8@fedia.io 7 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (7 children)

If you have separate developers for writing unit tests, and not every developer writing them as they code, something is already very wrong in your project.

Deployment and infra should also mostly be setup and forget, by which I mean general devops, like setting up CI and infrastructure-as-code. Using modern practices, which lean towards continuous deployment, releasing a feature should just be a matter of toggling a feature flag. Any dev can do this.

Finally, if your developers are 'code monkeys', you're not ready for a project of this scale.

[–] dandi8@fedia.io 196 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (21 children)

There are good reasons to dislike Telegram, but having "just" 30 engineers is not one of them. Software development is not a chair factory, more people does not equal more or better quality work as much as 9 women won't give birth to a baby in a month.

Edit:

Galperin told TechCrunch. “‘Thirty engineers’ means that there is no one to fight legal requests, there is no infrastructure for dealing with abuse and content moderation issues.”

I don't think fighting legal requests and content moderation is an engineer's job. However, the article can't seem to get it straight whether it's 30 engineers, or 30 staff overall. In the latter case, the context changes dramatically and I don't have the knowledge to tell if 30 staff is enough to deal with legal issues. I would imagine that Telegram would need a small army of lawyers and content moderators for that. Again, not engineers, though.

[–] dandi8@fedia.io 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Regarding mutation testing, you don't write any "tests for your test". Rather, a mutation testing tool automatically modifies ("mutates") your production code to see if the modification will be caught by any of your tests.

That way you can see how well your tests are written and how well-tested parts of your application are in general. Its extremely useful.

[–] dandi8@fedia.io 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

On the one hand, mutation testing is an important concept that more people should know about and use.

On the other, I fail to see how AI is helpful here, as mutation testing is an issue completely solvable by algorithms.

The need to use external LLMs like OpenAI is also a big no from me.

I think I'll stick to Pitest for my Java code.

[–] dandi8@fedia.io 2 points 5 months ago

Why aren't LRG releasing all these classics on GOG?

view more: ‹ prev next ›