I’m not talking about the work contributors do, obviously that is invaluable.

But if you do a review, and you see that a function should be extracted at one point to avoid code duplication, is it really faster to tell the contributor that a function needs to be extracted there, compared to just extracting it yourself as you see it?

The value of a review is collaborative truth finding and learning. If there is an LLM on the other end, that’s just not happening.

That is just mostly wrong. Around 90% of the time, when you do a review, just fixing the issue that you found is much faster than explaining the issue and saying what needs to be done instead.

Reviews plainly are for educating the contributor to what constitutes “non-shit”(using your terminology) code on the repo. If that wasn’t the case, you could just not do a review and just change the code, without any interaction at all. Why would you communicate the change that needs to be done otherwise?

Rarely of course, something is so complicated that it actually takes more time to come up with the right code than do a review. But that is only a rare thing.

It’s quite obviously cheaper to not make it replaceable, otherwise they would do it globally. Companies are not that spiteful when it comes to money. The battery is probably already theoretically replaceable by repair shops with special tool or whatever, there was just an opening in the hull missing. So it’s likely just one or two pieces that have to be manufactured differently, the rest can stay the same.

Not YouTube, Soulseek. Nicotine frontend. Use a VPN.

The inane thing is being able to skip semicolons. Exactly, why should anyone bother with that. We wouldn’t have this conversation. So yes, this is valid criticism of JavaScript, it’s not a very important one at all, but still.

There are languages that compile into JS or WebAssembly, might be worth to look at that. I like Clojurescript, but others are also good.

If you desire to interpret my comment as “shitting on people”, that is your prerogative. However, that is not how I meant it.

Thinking about things is great, and that opinion is actually contained in my comment, if you look closely: I want people to think, just not about things that aren’t really worth it.

The article is great, thinking about this in general is great, you just don’t want your future to be spent making decisions about where to place semicolons, that is not a beneficial use of one’s time. Without that thinking about where to place semicolons, you’re free to think about more useful topics.

To expand on this: Ideally you would work in a language you didn’t have these inane rules about semicolons, like the article is obviously good and correct, but it’s just not something that anyone should have to think about, it doesn’t lead to better programs.

Tl;dr: just put a semicolon at the end, and you never need to think, this is just not really worth it