Seems like a bad idea unless she’s very familiar with the projects she would help document. Documentation is notoriously not something that can be produced by a newcomer, because it requires experience that a newcomer doesn’t have.

I guess the best way for a newcomer to help would be to try to use the product and ask every little question they have to make sure they receive the correct answers and context and, at the end of the process, enough knowledge would be gained to contribute at least one piece of documentation. But the bulk of the knowledge would still come from people that already know the product, so in terms of efficiency it’s way worse than having the authors write it.

Of course, if the authors are unwilling or unable to write good (or any, even) documentation, having someone that has the will to gather the scattered information into a central place and work on it so it’s digestible and high quality is still unbelievably useful.

But yeah, my point being that documentation is far trickier than it seems as far as open source contributions go.

Ah, no idea about live streams as I don’t watch those. I would imagine they have a different format for those as two ads every 2 to 5 minutes wouldn’t work for those.

Now that I think about it, it may be because I don’t have an account so maybe google has less data to harvest and sell and so I get more ads. Unfortunately they might think that this would make me think “I should make an account” or “I should buy youtube premium”. Instead, I just think I need to avoid that place as much as possible.

Except 10 to 20 seconds of advertisements play every 2 to 5 minutes. It’s not a matter of patience

It is genuinely infuriating to the point I simply uninstalled youtube on my iPhone and switched to using web-based alternatives. And yes, no need to lecture me on apple, I only have an iPhone for reasons. I’d rather have a linux phone instead.

2 ads play every time you start a video. Maybe you’re watching a playlist and realize 5 seconds into the video that you already watched this one, so you click the button to go to the next video.

Two more ads, no matter that you got two ads literally 5 seconds ago.

Looking for a specific video that you don’t quite remember the title of? That’s right, two ads every time you go “hmm no, it wasn’t this one”.

Two more ads are also guaranteed to play within at most minute 2, usually just after 60 seconds. So that’s a minimum of 4 ads in the first or second minute of any video you watch. After that, the amount of ads varies, but in my experience it’s not less than two every 5 minutes, and they happen randomly.

So every 5 minutes at most you get 10 - 20 seconds of advertisements in the middle of a sentence. Wanna go back 10 seconds to refresh the context that was lost by the jarring interruption? No problem, have 2 more ads. Sometimes as much as 3 times in a row.

The worst offender I had was a 30-ish minute video where, and I swear this is neither exaggeration nor hyperbole, two ads would play every two minutes, for the whole video (it’s also the video where I got two ads playing when I scrolled back 10 seconds, 3 times in a row). So overall on that 30 minute video I must have got around 45 to 55 ads (2 at the start, 2 every 2 minutes, 2 almost every time I scrolled back 10 seconds).

Meh. Been developing professionally with C++ for 10 years at this point. I’m one of the weird people that kinda likes C++ and its pragmatism despite all its warts.

I’d like C++ better if it didn’t have inheritance. There are better solutions to model interfaces, and without inheritance people can’t write class hierarchies that are 10 levels deep with a different set of virtual functions overridden (and new virtual functions added) at each level.

And yes, that is not hypothetical. Real codebases in the real world shipping working products do that, and it’s about as nice as you can imagine.

You do have a terminology mismatch. In C++, an abstract class is a class with at least one pure virtual method.

Such classes cannot be instantiated, so they are useful only as base classes.

An interface is more of a concept than a thing.

Sure you can say that Iterable is an interface that provides the Next() and Prev() methods and you can say that Array is an Iterable because it inherits from Iterable (and then you override those methods to do the correct thing), and that’s one way to implement an interface in C++.

But you can also say that Iterable<T> is a class template that provides a Next() and Prev() methods that call the methods of the same name on the type that they wrap (CRTP aka static polymorphism).

Or you can say that an algorithm that scans a collection T forward requires the collection to have a Next() method by calling Next() on it.

And I can think of at least 2 other ways to define an interface that isn’t using abstract classes.

And even if using abstract classes, inheriting from them is definitely the least flexible way to use them to define an interface, because it doesn’t allow one to do something like mocking functionality in tests, because it’s not possible to redefine the class to be tested to inherit from the test interface implementation with mocked functionality, so one still needs something to the effect of dependency injection anyway.

So yeah, abstract class is very different from inheritance, and it’s also very different from interface, even though it relates to both.

Contact lenses in a nutshell

Since my previous example didn’t really have return value, I am changing it slightly. So if I’m reading your suggestion of “rewriting that in 3 lines and a single nested scope followed by a single return”, I think you mean it like this?

int retval = 0;

// precondition checks:
if (!p1) retval = -ERROR1;
if (p2) retval = -ERROR2;
if (!p3 && p4) retval = -ERROR3;

// business logic:
if (p1 && !p2 && (p3 || !p4))
{
    retval = 42;
}

// or perhaps would you prefer the business logic check be like this?
if (retval != -ERROR1 && retval != -ERROR2 && retval != -ERROR3)
{
    retval = 42;
}

// or perhaps you'd split the business logic predicate like this? (Assuming the predicates only have a value of 0 or 1)
int ok = p1;
ok &= !p2;
ok &= p3 || !p4;
if (ok)
{
    retval = 42;
}

return retval;

as opposed to this?

// precondition checks:
if(!p1) return -ERROR1;
if(p2) return -ERROR2;
if(!p3 && p4) return -ERROR3;

// business logic:
return 42;

Using a retval has the exact problem that you want to avoid: at the point where we do return retval, we have no idea how retval was manipulated, or if it was set multiple times by different branches. It’s mutable state inside the function, so any line from when the variable is defined to when return retval is hit must now be examined to know why retval has the value that it has.

Not to mention that the business logic then needs to be guarded with some predicate, because we can’t early return. And if you need to add another precondition check, you need to add another (but inverted) predicate to the business logic check.

You also mentioned resource leaks, and I find that a more compelling argument for having only a single return. Readability and understandability (both of which directly correlate to maintainability) are undeniably better with early returns. But if you hit an early return after you have allocated resources, you have a resource leak.

Still, there are better solutions to the resource leak problem than to clobber your functions into an unreadable mess. Here’s a couple options I can think of.

1. Don’t: allow early returns only before allocating resources via a code standard. Allows many of the benfits of early returns, but could be confusing due to using both early returns and a retval in the business logic
2. If your language supports it, use RAII
3. If your language supports it, use defer
4. You can always write a cleanup function

Example of option 1

// precondition checks
if(!p1) return -ERROR1;
if(p2) return -ERROR2;
if(!p3 && p4) return -ERROR3;

void* pResource = allocResource();
int retval = 0;

// ...
// some business logic, no return allowed
// ...

freeResource(pResource);
return retval; // no leaks

Example of option 2

// same precondition checks with early returns, won't repeat them for brevity

auto Resource = allocResource();

// ...
// some business logic, return allowed, the destructor of Resource will be called when it goes out of scope, freeing the resources. No leaks
// ...

return 42;

Example of option 3

// precondition checks

void* pResource = allocResource();
defer freeResource(pResource);

// ...
// some business logic, return allowed, deferred statements will be executed before return. No leaks
// ...

return 42;

Example of option 4

int freeAndReturn(void* pResource, const int retval)
{
    freeResource(pResource);
    return retval;
}

int doWork()
{
    // precondition checks

    void* pResource = allocResource();

    // ...
    // some business logic, return allowed only in the same form as the following line
    // ...

    return freeAndReturn(pResource, 42);
}

Bad advice. Early return is way easier to parse and comprehend.

if (p1)
{
    if(!p2)
    {
        if(p3 || !p4)
        {
            *pOut = 10;
        }
    }
}

vs

if(!p1) return;
if(p2) return;
if(!p3 && p4) return;

*pOut = 10;

Early out makes the error conditions explicit, which is what one is interested in 90% of the time. After the last if you know that all of the above conditions are false, so you don’t need to keep them in your head.

And this is just a silly example with 3 predicates, imagine how a full function with lots of state looks. You would need to keep the entire decision tree in your head at all times. That’s the opposite of maintainable.

Not so fast now! High resolution video only available on edge on windows

If this was cpp, clang-tidy would tell you “do not use else after return”

I don’t know how null works in swift, but assuming it coerces to bool I’d write

if (a) return a;
return b;

So, again, you are either implying that you run pirated windows on your work machine, or you are saying you can’t install Linux on your work machine. Neither is what this is being discussed. Having a boss is completely irrelevant

I don’t know, I’ve been using Linux for the better part of 15 years now, on my desktop, so for me it’s been the year of the Linux desktop for a while.

Sure, there are some issues here and there, but far, far fewer than in windows. Even 10 years ago.

My IT department likes to install antivirus software that makes it impossible to do your job because it will scan every compiled object file, inflating compilation times by an order of magnitude, even for distributed compilation jobs.

Or stupid “workspace management” software that will randomly uninstall work-related software and / or reboot your machine whenever it pleases.

Luckily I can use Linux at work, otherwise I’d have to either quit or tamper with my work machine to do my job.

And yes, the IT department knows. But they are always “understaffed” to fix stuff. Curiously, they are never understaffed to roll out new stuff that doesn’t work though.

Then why would you need to quit your job if you installed Linux on your personal devices?

You are the one that brought up that installing Linux would require you to quit your job, on a post announcing that one method to pirate windows no longer works, implying that either you use pirated windows at work, or your employer has the right to fire you if you install Linux on your personal devices.

Since the latter is extremely bonkers and, quite frankly, unheard of, assuming the former seems much more reasonable. Especially considering that tons of people do indeed run pirated windows at work, and I myself witnessed as much.