Turns out you were the hacker all along

I guess this is go, and I don’t know what the scoping is. In C++ I also suggest putting as much in the if as possible, because it limits the scope of the variables.

I found basic functioning of worktrees to fail with submodules. The worktree doesn’t know about submodules, and again and again messes up the links to it. Basic pulling, switching branches, …, all of this frequently fails to work because the link to the submodule is broken. I ended up creating the submodules as worktrees of a separate checkout of the submodule repo, and recreating these submodule worktrees over and over. I pretty much stopped using worktrees at that point.

Have you tried the global git config to enable recursive over sub modules by default?

Nope, fingers crossed it helps for you ;) Unrelated to worktrees but: in the end I like submodules in theory but found them to be absolutely terrible in practice, that’s without even factoring in the worktrees. So we went back to a monorepo.

I’m a C++ dev, I have one checkout of the main repo and 3 worktrees. Switching branches can be expensive because of recompiles, so to do e.g. quick fixes I’ll use worktree 1 where I typically don’t even compile the code, just make the fix and push it to the CI system. Worktrees 2 and 3 I keep at older releases so I can immediately fire up development and one of those releases side by side and compare results as well as the code.

The cool thing about worktrees instead of multiple checkouts is that you only have one .git folder, so less disk space. But more importantly local branches (well everything actually) are shared, so you can create a local branch in the main checkout, and later come back to it in a worktree. You also don’t need fetching/… in the worktrees, as they share the same .git folder.

Only thing that I found virtually impossible to work with is worktree + submodules.

To me that sounds like “that machine prototype is inefficient - just skip the prototype next time and build the real thing right away.”

I don’t think you understand my point, which is that developing the prototype takes e.g. 50% more time than it should because of complete lack of understanding of software development.

Mostly ML or data processing libraries I would assume, I’ve read tons of REST server and ORM python code for instance, none of that is written in C.

Wrt rust: no experience with that. I do do a lot of C++, there you quickly reach the end as typically you’re consuming quite a bit of libraries but the complete sources of those aren’t part of what is parsed by the IDE as keeping all that in memory would be unworkable.

My point about the jumping into was that you can immediately start reading the sources. Most alternative languages are compiled in some form or other so all you’ll see is an API, not the implementation.

As a researcher: all the professional software engineers here have no idea about the requirements for code in a research setting.

As someone with extensive experience in both: my first requirement would be readability. Single python file? Fine with that. 1k+ lines single python file without functions or other means of structuring the code: please no.

The nice thing about python is that your IDE let’s you jump into the code of the libraries you’re using, I find that to be a good way to look at how experienced python devs write code.

Odd take imo. OP is a programmer, albeit perhaps not a very good one. Did a PhD (computational astrophysics), been working as a professional dev for 10 years after that. Imo a good programmer writes code that solves the problem at hand, I don’t see that much of a difference between the problem being scientific or a backend service. It doesn’t mean “write lots of boilerplate-y factories, interfaces and other layers” to me, neither in research nor outside of it.

That being said, there is so much time lost in research institutes because of shoddy programming by researchers, or simply ignorance, not knowing a debugger exists for instance. OP wanting to level up their game would almost certainly result in getting to research results faster, + they may be able to help their peers become better as well.

And then those methods grow and grow, or stop making sense, or start meaning something else, and you would have to go through the same abstract-deprecate-remove again. Rinse and repeat and if you do this regularly enough you have web development where you get your feet swept from under you every couple of years.

It’s a bit of a pick your poison situation, for me the backwards compatibility path is the right call here though.

If I wrote an IDE and detected tabs I’d just have it delete the codebase

The dosubot also downvoted its own first post in that thread lmao

Rebasing is basically copy/paste of commits. I do it all the time, to keep a feature branch updated with develop for instance.

By using big data on the IOT of course!

Indeed. They say they’ve been repeatedly featured on the front page of HN and the site didn’t fall over, I’ve seen many examples that did.

This presented a fraudulent focus on diversity.

What a day to be able to read

Thanks for posting, we use scratch in our montly CoderDojo, will be certain to give this a look!

I think motivation is a bit more nuanced than that. Also what is said isn’t restricted to programmers. Money is an external motivator, which means it isn’t really motivating as in providing fulfillment and energy when doing a job. It can give you a reason to to the job, “it pays the bills” or “it pays the bills extremely well”, but that’s something different.

That being said, I do look for jobs where I am motivated about the projects and the environment. In fact this is the main thing I evaluate when applying for a position. I also expect to be (and am) well-paid but I’m not aiming for the top bucks, because those jobs don’t interest me. I’m spending 8 hours a day doing this work, a big majority of the high-quality hours of the week are sunk into the job. I’m happy I get to spend them doing things I enjoy, with people I enjoy working with, as opposed to having to slog through them just because I need the money.

I rebase almost daily. I (almost) never merge the main branch into a feature branch, always rebase. I don’t see the point of polluting the history with this commit (assuming I’m the only dev on this branch). I also almost always do an interactive rebase before actually pushing a branch for the first time, in order to clean up commits. I mostly recreate my commits from scratch before pushing, but even then I sometimes forget to include a change in a commit I’ve just made so I then do an interactive rebase to fold fixup commits into the commits they should’ve been in.

I like merging for actually adding commits from a feature branch to main (or release or …)

And anyway… it’s trivial to fix. If you still have the commit ID of the tip of the branch before the pull, go back to that. If not, look it up in the reflog. If that’s too much of a hassle, list the commits you only have locally, stash any changes, reset to the origin/the_branch and cherry-pick your commits again and/or apply the stash.

I really embraced git once I understood that whatever I did locally, it’s most of the time relatively easy to recover from cock-ups. And it’s really difficult to lose work from the moment you’ve added it to a (local) commit or stashed it.

I do understand that git is daunting however, and there is plenty where I think the defaults are bad. Too often I’ve seen merge commits where someone merged a the remote of a branch into the local copy of the same branch, or even this on main. And once this stuff gets pushed it’s neigh impossible to go back.