• 0 Posts
  • 46 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 18th, 2023

help-circle
  • IMO, “One app/library/etc does one thing only” is a rather ignorant form of wisdom about encapsulation, anyways.

    Encapsulation is important regardless of how many disparate tasks a library handles. Doing one thing with one thing is a pretty good rule of thumb to get close to good results, but it is FAR from a golden standard, and serves to drag people away from the finer nuances of encapsulation.

    The ONLY time it is a hard and fast rule is at the individual function level. A single function ideally should have one task to accomplish, even if that task has side effects.

    I’m sure there are cross-dependency issues on an OS level that makes it a bit wiser to do for wide, cross-cutting system tasks, but to make it an absolute rule smacks of wisdom gone awry.


  • IMO, the most important parts are to document the actual intent of the code. The contract of what is being documented. Sure, it’s only so useful in perfectly written code, but NO code is perfect, and few will come through later with full context already learned.

    It makes it sooo mich easier to know what is intended behavior and what is an unchecked edge case or an unexpected problem. If it’s a complicated thing with a lot of fallout, good documentation can save hours of manually lining up consequences and checking through them for sanity.

    You might say, “but that’s indication of bad code!”. No. Not really. Consequences easily extend past immediate code doing things as trivial as saving data to the database without filtering, or having a publicly available service. Even perfectly coded things come up with vulnerabilities all the time due to underlying security issues. It’s always great to have an immediate confirmation of what’s supposed to happen whether it’s immediate code or some library with a new quirk in a new version.









  • MotoAsh@lemmy.worldtoAssholeDesign@lemmy.worldMy grocery store wants to know my BMI
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    iOS … ok that makes sense for the made for stupid people but… Does the application control the subtext of the permissions request? If location is NOT included in that category, then Apple has made a grave mistake of allowing app makers to openly lie to users…

    BTW, a mismatch in permissions could be because the app was made with a common build tool that doesn’t understand (or maybe the app developer themselves failed to understand) that it could request location by itself.

    … Or they really are trying to harvest more info than they want to admit… but then I ask … Why is it on Apple’s closed app store if it’s lying to users? (because Apple also doesn’t care. they just want to appear to care)


  • It’s a telemetry category. What ever OS that is does not do separate permissions, probably not to confuse tech-illiterate users.

    Scummy of the OS? No. Stupid? Well, it’s made for stupid people…

    The app MIGHT want location just to limit items to what are actually locally available in your area and the like. Though with modern capitalism… Who’s to say how many companies will see that information for no other reason than they want to own you…