Seems it depends on which elite/establishment, going by Wikipedia’s definition: “populism” is the political stance of “the people” against “the elite/establishment”
So by that defn, both of these examples qualify:
wanted to add something to the end of a for-loop, but had too little indentation
To address this, I prefer reducing length & depth of nested code, so the for/while is rarely ever not visible along with everything inside it. Others have success with editors that draw indentation lines.
opening up new/anonymous scopes
I occasionally use Python nested functions for this purpose
I find it’s possible to operate Python as a statically typed language if you wanted, though it takes some setup with external tooling. It wasn’t hard, but had to set up pyright, editor integration, configuration to type check strictly and along with tests, and CI.
I even find the type system to be far more powerful than how I remembered Java’s to be (though I’m not familiar with the newest Java versions).
I prefer that, though (it’s in my calendar, but I don’t have to accept). I really can’t stand Outlook’s email-based calendar workflow.
That’s only because the former already implies much of the latter, so they don’t need to repeat it
It refers to a male cousin that is NOT in the same paternal line, so maybe not too uncommon?
Pretty spiteful of you
In the long run, nearly the same effect as 100% inheritance tax anyways.
The government won’t know the cash has been removed from the economy, but it’ll have been removed all the same.
avoiding merge conflicts
No, not like that – you misunderstand. I’m not talking about actively avoiding conflicts. Coordinating to avoid merge conflicts is the same work as resolving a merge conflict anyway, just at a different time.
I’m talking about creating practices and environments where they’re less likely to happen in the first place, never incurring the coordination cost at all.
One example at the individual level is similar to what you mentioned, but there’s more to it. E.g. atomically renaming and moving in separate commits, so git’s engine better understands how the code has changed over time and can better resolve merges without conflict.
But there’re other levels to it, too. A higher-order example could be a hot module where conflicts frequently occur. Sure, atomic commits and all that can help “recover” from conflict more easily, but perhaps if the hot module were re-designed so that interface boundaries aligned with the domains of changes that keep conflicting, future changes would simply not conflict anymore.
IMO the latter has an actual productivity benefit for teams/orgs. Some portion of devs just aren’t going to be that git proficient, and in this case, good high level organization is saving them from losing hours to incorrect conflict resolutions that can cause lost work, unintended logical conflicts (even though not lexical conflict), etc. Plus, it implies abstraction boundaries better match the changes demanded by the domain, so the code is likely easier to understand, too.
It’s kind of difficult to explain in the same way git is difficult to grok on the first try.
Perhaps it’s convincing enough to just say:
I.e. whether a conflict will happen is not some totally unpredictable random event. It’s possible to engineer a project’s code & repo so that conflicts are less common.
Even better, learn how to avoid conflicts from happening in the first place!
What kind of quick one off scripts have large complex scopes where variable renames are difficult to track?
Besides, these days Python has great LSPs and typing features that can even surpass the traditional typed langs
Technically, anything can be “hacked”, but that’s the same kind of technically as “any car can be broken into”.
Just like there are ways to mitigate getting your car broken into, there are ways to mitigate getting your system compromised.
deleted by creator
If that’s what you’re looking for, then: https://gitless.com/
Call their bluff!
If they’re SO concerned and want help signing bans for imaginary problems into law, there are plenty of real issues worth trading for in exchange.
E.g. from now on, schools nationwide are additionally funded to both prohibit litterboxes for students that identify as cats and provide free and healthy school lunches.