Transcript
Speaker: Welcome to the Codeplay Culture Podcast, where we discuss tech, gaming, health, and the world around us. This is the first time for everything, but you gotta start somewhere. I'm sure everyone's doing this by now, so it might as well do it before people are like, hey, why aren't you doing this? Like, oh, that's the old social media from that era that doesn't exist. It's like, oh, you don't podcast? It's like podcasts were so
Speaker: old school. Welcome, everyone. This is episode number one of the Codeplay Culture Podcast, Logan and Rui. This episode is less code, more impact.
Speaker: Basically, what we want to talk about today is just going through minimalism in terms of technical debt, code bases, writing things once, and maybe you can kick it off a little bit with what's been some positive experience in
Speaker: in having less or more or vice versa? Well, positive in having more. I don't think there's positive in having more. My personal opinion, I think more is just too much and it gets very confusing. But by that with the same token, that could be something we could talk about and dive into further. So is more code better? That depends on the situation. Personally, I think it's terrible. But for somebody who's not really
Speaker: Let's say a coder or a forward thinking developer, it could be an aid. If you really think about it, whole code base.
Speaker: could be something that's, you know, some kind of like, I don't know, could be some kind of - Manual. Yeah, exactly, like a manual for a crappy developer. I'm sorry, I take that. Like, yeah, it's like the onboarding is going through the code. Right, exactly. But ultimately, you want to move yourself forward into that space where you're writing
Speaker: less and more efficient. It could be the same code base, but condensed, the smaller it gets. I mean, unlike some things, the smaller code gets, the better it is. Yeah. Yeah, I agree. I feel like a lot of the different companies and clients like can we both work with and correct me if I'm wrong, if it's different in your experience. However, in my experience, the clients that I'm working
Speaker: they're really excited about adding, right? Especially very new, trendy, up and coming applications. Not really like a flavor I'm seeing for, can we take a day to refactor? And the goal of that would be to reduce, let's say 100 lines of code. That would be the, you know, the
Speaker: the Jira story or the Azure DevOps ticket or whatever. Are you seeing that at all? Where they're like, hey, this is very important that we feel like you gotta spend this time cleaning it. Right, no, I have not seen that. And from a business standpoint, I don't know if it makes fiscal sense to them to be like, all right, you guys take like a week to refactor this code to make it more efficient in a way that we're not gonna see a profit from.
Speaker: It may not be the best thing for them fiscally, but I mean, as from, from our point of view, it's, it's the right thing to do. Right. And we have to find that balance, which is difficult.
Speaker: I wonder if it's because maybe, and I guess I'm just generalizing, but maybe developers in general aren't communicating the benefits of that to the business and senior management leadership.
Speaker: In my opinion, what I'm seeing is a lot of these clients won't have the appetite for that. However, when it gets to the point where we're having a scaling issue, where we can't actually put features in as fast as we want to because a code base is so bloated,
Speaker: there seems to be frustration there. That, to me, screams, okay, if you just listen to us from the get -go of, I'm saying us as in this hypothetical, metaphorical developer trying to petition management for code cleansing and
Speaker: Because if you, if you keep on building like a speedboat into Titanic, you know, the Titanic can't turn on a dime. It's going to hit an iceberg. Absolutely. Yeah.
Speaker: Yeah, no, that makes total sense. Um, maybe it falls on our shoulders to convince them and show them the right way. But does that typically end in success? Are we, I mean, for, for, for my experience, it's a futile attempt, right? I feel like you need a buffer in between as a developer, we can't just go to the business and say, well, I need to refactor, you know, this code and.
Speaker: This is what's going to happen long -term. It'll save you a ton of time creating modules or programs, but will they accept it? I don't know if they will accept that from a developer. My experience tells me not, but I don't know. What do you think?
Speaker: I would agree. In most cases, in my opinion, not worth pursuing, letting the business know that, hey, we're going to refactor this. It's almost better if you have a team of developers that you're working with, you kind of pull them aside independently and suggest that, hey, let's spend an hour refactoring. And you can put it in your next PR for the next feature.
Speaker: However, it wouldn't be a dedicated pull request for data cleansing. What do you think? Yeah, I mean, that's good. I think that's good. Ultimately, it does make sense for sure. I think right off the bat, that is the right approach is to put everything to a manageable state.
Speaker: Um, and a condensed and more, you know, readable and refactorable, if that's even a word state where any developer can pick it up and look at it and say, well, these guys did an amazing job and just carry on that torch. Um, yeah, I think that's great for sure. Yeah. Um, but in terms of writing cleaner code, um, there are a ton of options out there and I think there's no excuse for writing spaghetti code with the amount of, um, you know,
Speaker: knowledge and resources we have, right? Right. I wonder if you'd just upload your code, chat GPT and say, Hey, this is what I'm working with. Can you just give me back like a one -liner? Yeah. I'd be like, okay, okay. Here's some obscure EXE that we compiled this down to. And now it's a one -liner. That's like the lazy approach chat GPT takes. Yeah.
Speaker: that brings up an interesting idea is, and I just thought of this now, I don't know if it exists, I'm sure it could, is, you know how when people do pull requests, you see a plus lines and minus lines per file, right? And you see, I believe you see an overall, meaning how many lines were added. What about the whole,
Speaker: mentality or methodology of, um, that would be a cultural practice adopted by a business to say, okay, we have a net neutral PR policy. Meaning that if there is a PR, um, there will be, um, zero lines committed netted out. So if you've, if you've, um, if you've,
Speaker: Um, you know, committed a hundred lines of code and you hit that PR, it'll say plus 100. And, um, you know, the, the dev lead comes back and says, I'm going to need to see a minus 100 lines. Right.
Speaker: and then you push, commit to that, you were able to refactor a couple of functions, maybe just get rid of a lot of white space. But if we're getting to the point now as culturally as a business, and if we were doing that, let's say, if we're finding it really, really hard to do that, because we've all refactored the heck out of everything, that seems to be a good place
Speaker: Yeah, right. Like I tried, like I scoured the code base. I spent, let's say, 30 minutes trying to refactor things. I only was able to shave two lines off of it. Maybe as part of the PR process of it.
Speaker: a net neutral line check -in. It could be audacious, however, if it's a requirement, and you can even put something in the pipeline build process for the PR and it says, hey, it won't be able to be pushed, even if it's approved, unless it's net neutral.
Speaker: Yeah, I think that's a good idea. No, I think that's a really good idea. We should put that into practice at some point. Yeah, exactly. It's funny, when we talk about the minimalism, it's always a pipe dream. For sure. It's like, oh yeah, we should really refactor. Well, you know, everything starts with a dream, man. That's the way it works, right? That's very true. That's a good sentiment, that's for sure.
Speaker: Uh, it is a Valentine's day right now. And, um, I, yes, it is. Did you remember? Of course you did the romantic thought. So I woke up at 2 AM this morning, went to bed at midnight. And, uh, this morning, um, wife gives, um, Valentine's day to the, uh, gifts to the kids. And then that's when I realized it was Valentine's day. And then the kids looked at me and they said, um, did.
Speaker: did you get us something too, Dad?" And I'm like, of course I did. I was not able to, I'm not sure how I was that witty at that point on that little sleep. And then Megan, of course, is such a name. She says, well, everything from me, kiddos, is also from Dad. And then the kiddos were like,
Speaker: Thank you. And they hugged me after obviously, but, uh, so she saved a situation and, um, no, but, uh, yeah, it's like the lack of sleep will, uh, we'll make your minimalism of code maximalism in like bugs. Yeah. Minimalism when it comes to sleep is not a good thing. No code. Yes. Not sleep. You need your sleep, man. We all need our sleep.
Speaker: But, uh, what's your, yeah, kind of like a do derailment derailment a little bit, but, uh, what, what, uh, what time do you go to bed and what time do you wake up? Like on average? Yeah. So on average, like midnight until like six 30 or seven o 'clock six, six 30, I think is the cutoff. That's when I wake up, my body just naturally wakes itself up.
Speaker: But it's not many hours. It's about six, seven hours. And when's your last cup of coffee or any caffeine?
Speaker: throughout the day or any chocolate. I don't eat chocolate typically, but caffeine, let's say my last cup would be around five, six, sometimes four, but I try not to drink it obviously in the evening or closer to bedtime. Right. Yeah. But, um, it doesn't really keep me up. Honestly, I can fall asleep with a cup of coffee. Yeah. That's when I'm asleep right now. I'm asleep too. Um, yeah, it's like your caffeine adapted. Um, um,
Speaker: Megan sent me something funny, not funny, is interesting the other day. It's ever when you're falling asleep and you get these little shocks or tremors or little kicks or little leg movements. Apparently, what that is, she sent a video of someone explaining it, some qualified person, I'm assuming. That was, it's, your body is going to sleep
Speaker: before your brain is. So what your brain does is it sends a, you know, an electrical current to that to stop it from shutting down, which is kind of crazy to think about. Your body is falling asleep faster than your brain. Yeah. Yeah. So nuts. You would think that like you had a very active day. Yeah. Right. And where the opposite might be true where your body is like awake. Yeah. But your, your brain dead. Right. But I mean, um,
Speaker: Anyways, back to our code talk. We went down rabbit hole here. What can we do to make our code more efficient on a daily? Let's say daily basis, starting from today.
Speaker: How can we make it better? What can we do first? I think first and foremost, you have to mentally tell ourselves, we're going to have a good, a good day today. You always start with it. It all starts mentally. Yeah. Yeah. We're at that, you know, cerebral, cerebral level. We have to say, we're going to have a good day today. And then of course, let everything kind of fall into place. And, uh,
Speaker: Just do things proper. Set enough time when you're developing something to write the code clean and not rush. That's the key. Don't rush it. Write it clean. Use structures. Use structures that exist. Use code that exists that's obviously optimized and written better than what you can write.
Speaker: um just stuff like that like don't rewrite the wheel as they say and obviously don't repeat yourself that old programming acronym dry yeah yeah and there's like also solid and all of these other yeah what does solid stand for i can't remember
Speaker: I have to look it up. I think it's like single use principle or something like that. I think it's the whole duality. I might have to like make a note to add a correction to the next note or show if I'm saying this wrong. But I think it's the whole loosely coupled versus tightly bound. But then there's the, I think solid is like the single, there's like a
Speaker: It's an acronym of each letter is a word, single use, and then it goes through. On a lot of the .NET Rocks podcast, they had a bunch of people on there saying that when solid came out, that was back when code was in a very different place than it is now. However, they've been bringing that methodology along for the ride almost like it was
Speaker: you know, stone tablets that were unchanging, right? And so some people are kind of like, you know, there's more modern, I guess, ways of thinking about, you know, that kind of, you know, code reuse and not breaking things. And then the
Speaker: single use thing is like you can get host either way. I find where if you have everything using let's say the same objects, then if you make a change somewhere, then it breaks everything. Or if you have the opposite where let's say every page on a website has its own
Speaker: you know, like DTO or some kind of object or class, then, you know, you make a change to that page or that model or DTO, it will essentially only break there. Now that will have way more code, right? So you have like huge amount of code because of
Speaker: Then there's this whole thing of, okay, well, we don't want to break everything every time we make a change, but we don't want to have tons of code. What would be the middle path through that? For me, and personally in the past year, it's really been source code generators because with those,
Speaker: For those that don't know, Roslyn C -sharp source code generators, Roslyn is the open source underlying engine in Visual Studio. You can tap into a lot of stuff and commit PRs to it and all that as far as I'm aware. You can imagine, let's say, for example, very simply, you have
Speaker: a table like entity framework core or something like that. And it's like a user table. It's actually easy to think about. And then let's say you wanted to make a DTO, right? And imagine you could just add a data annotation to that user domain object.
Speaker: and it would just automatically create the user DTO. Now in this example, it would take every column from the table and just make a DTO. So what's the point of the DTO? But it's just a brief example of like, hey, we don't have to write this by hand. And then so every time you'd add that annotation, it would just make new files. So I really feel like
Speaker: with getting back to the minimalism in the business. Yeah, in my opinion, there's no appetite for refactoring or reduction in code. And the amount of code or the net neutral thing is probably like a pipe dream as well, right?
Speaker: So assume that we're going to add globally or whatever it is, trillions of lines of code over the X amount of years. So it would be nice to ramp up like crazy and have a lot of the code generation do that for you. Absolutely, yeah.
Speaker: So it's nice when it's organized, right? It's nice when you have all proper classes, all that stuff, but I really want to type that out by hand. No, of course not. And things like that can only be done initially at a planning phase of a new software, but yeah, retrofitting stuff like that's incredibly difficult, right? Going back and changing code is just time consuming and it's, you know, budget constraints and there are all kinds of factors, right?
Speaker: But for sure, yeah, you're absolutely right. Having code generators is probably the way of the future, to be honest. It's that step that we all need to take to kind of write that manageable, concise, just bite -sized code for not just us, for future developers, right? One thing I do like about source code generators in general is that
Speaker: If you have like a certain, I feel like a lot of developers, they have this want to have like perfect code. I would say majority of them probably, like they have their code super clean and it look nice, right? When you're, cause if you love what you do, you probably like, okay, that looks good to me. I love this. Like if you love what you wrote and it looks cool and it's organized and you have the time to keep it clean, then,
Speaker: with source code generators, you can ensure that the outputted code is perfect, no extra white space, any of that stuff. Why send a human to do the job of a robot kind of thing? If we can think about it, then we can just have the
Speaker: you know, chat GPT source code generators, all this stuff, do a lot of that for us. Yeah. I know. I get, I get this like little, this pleasure when I'm formatting my code, you know, when you kind of develop something and you get it to work, spend hours, maybe days, possibly weeks. I'm getting some process to work and it finally works.
Speaker: You're ecstatic. You're super happy. You haven't formatted it, but you spend the next hour happily formatting that because it just works and you're just so happy formatting. You just just indent this. It just feels so good. But I just love that feeling. It's funny. That is so true. I never thought I never even like.
Speaker: thought about like brought that to the forefront with like, you know, when you shine light on something, the light of awareness. I'm like, I'm like, listen, I spent six hours slaving over this and it's a mess, right? Like everything's everywhere, right? And you're like,
Speaker: I earned the ability to clean this up now. But it's so weird because it'll never be like that for a meal or cooking or something. If I cooked a big meal and it was amazing, it took two hours. I love cooking. And then we ate as a family and then everyone's around the table looking at each other like, who's going to clean up?
Speaker: But with coding, imagine if it was like that for that situation with dinner and eating, so everyone finishes, and then you look your wife right in the eye, or your significant other and say,
Speaker: Oh, that was perfect. I'm going to go and tidy the heck out of this thing. I'm going to love the kitchen. I'm going to go format this kitchen. I'm going to love it. That kitchen now has another level, right? It's like it's got stairs. Yeah. Unlike food programming is like a drug, as you know, it becomes an addiction. I've never done drugs, but I can imagine that's that feeling, that addiction and then that high when you get
Speaker: when you finally finish that program and everything works and works exactly the way that you want it to work, it's that feeling, man. You know it very well. Yeah. You find that leading up to the dopamine release of like, okay, I did it. Now I have to refactor or I'm going to organize it now and I'm happy. Sometimes that period when you're like, if you get stuck and you're trying to
Speaker: But you can't find examples online. You have no one you can call to figure it out. Is it just me or for you, does it also feel like you're kind of bashing your head against a wall? It hurts almost like right when you're trying to...
Speaker: Yeah, like tunnel vision. What else is it? What else is it? Oh, for sure, man. That happens to me all the time. Especially, you know, you finish something and what else could you do? Then there's something else. And what else? How can you make it, you know, a little bit better? And then they're like, they're blind spots in your code all the time, right?
Speaker: Yeah. And, uh, I don't know, I take a little bit of pleasure in finding those blind spots. I don't know what it is, but you know, I find a little blind spot and I fix it. It just feels like those little release, like you said, those little releases of dopamine, but they come in these little spurts and then kind of tight together. And, uh, it just feels amazing. And honestly, I wouldn't want to be doing anything else. Um, you know, as a career, except, uh, coding, I love it.
Speaker: If it's the greatest for anybody out there thinking of becoming a developer, do it. It's the best job. Definitely. It is, yes. Speaking of that, like now that they have chat GPT, sorry, now that they have Dolly too, you know, making a lot of artists feel like, you know, they're feeling it. There's now some stuff which will, I think Google has something that will generate, you know,
Speaker: music right on the fly. It'll just make you a whole song. So now producers, composers are all like that. So my question is, how long until
Speaker: You think it'll be this year or when will it be that you'll just go to open AI and you'll say generate website and mobile apps for this idea and create a company global or in Canada and file patents for, and you just enter your credit card and it spins up like this concept. You like this concept. How?
Speaker: How, how close are we for not recommending people to get into programming? No, we're not that close. We're very far from that. The amount of red tape behind all that you just said, just be insane. Um, it's one thing to create a song or create a shell of a website or even a website, everything chat G GPT can do. You can literally go and copy and paste it from somewhere else. Right? Like very true. Yeah. You can just copy and paste or.
Speaker: Whatever code you look for, yes, the intricacies are little, it'll output those intricacies and it'll save you time in researching, but you will eventually find that information, Googling stuff or looking stuff up on the internet. That being said, it's further development over time. Yes, it's going to probably at some point, you're going to tell it to make an app that can attract satellites. It'll generate an app for you.
Speaker: But, uh, as far as creating a business and that's a little more, you know, a lot of red tape in that, that industry. Right. But technical stuff. Yeah. I think, I think, uh, we should tell our kids to get into blue collar work, perhaps carpentry or mechanics or something. Yeah. It's going to change. It's going to change the landscape. Right. Hmm.
Speaker: Yeah, it is a little bit weird sitting and staring at screens all day. Yeah. And then as soon as you're done staring at this screen right now, really, you're going to go downstairs, have dinner with your family, and then you're going to stare at a different screen. Could be your phone, could be like a TV, whatever it is. And then after you've watched that different screen, you'll probably go to bed and look at a different screen.
Speaker: Yeah, it's pretty bad, but I typically don't like to stare at screens for too long. I read a lot. I read a lot of books, man. On an iPad? I almost got you there. Okay, so books, right? Like physical books. I read a lot. Every night. Yeah, every night. Every night I read, man. Every single night. Maybe that's why you can sleep. For at least an hour or two. So I don't spend... I mean, the problem is all the time in between, I'm staring at screens too, right? Like all day.
Speaker: and then television and then reruns of old game shows and a lot of stuff I shouldn't be watching.
Speaker: It's like how long would it take you to watch all of YouTube? Dude, the price is right, man. If it's frozen? Oh my God. Was that guy's name? You're like Bob Barker? Yeah, Bob Barker. And then it was... Yeah, I know. The price is wrong. Yeah, it's like those people on prices, right, where they're like, 200, 400.
Speaker: 300, 301 cent. And then the guy just looks over, it's like, ew. Was that a part? Yeah, it's like, and they always get it and they're like, oh.
Speaker: Good thing I went last. It's like, oh man, what a scam. I don't know. It's a big scam. It's a casino. Yeah. So that's it, man. These are some good ideas. And for sure, anybody looking to get into developer work?
Speaker: Um, send me your resume. I'm just kidding. Don't send me, I'm not hiring. But yeah, no, it is, it is good. Um, you know, there's tons of people still getting into this stuff and, um,
Speaker: I feel, in my opinion, I just have this feeling that a lot of developers are feeling that, oh, shoot, chat GPT. Should I be worried? There was a colleague of mine asked for it. It's like, hey, have you had any experience programming against this particular Google API? And I sent him, oh, yeah, this is a code snippet against this. I think it was like,
Speaker: Google Maps API or I can't remember because Google has a bunch of them, right? Bunch of APIs. And he's like, he's such an awesome guy. Like he's like, I would hang out with them. Like, you know, you know, one of those awesome dudes, like work aside programming aside, just real chill dude. And he's like, wow, this is so good. You should, you should put it in stack overflow. And it was like, I was like, thanks man. Maybe I will. I didn't have the hard to tell him at the time. I was like,
Speaker: Like, and then it ate at me and I had to message him and be like, Hey, by the way. Yeah. Honestly, man, I think that the media has blown it out of proportion as in typical fashion.
Speaker: Yeah, I don't think we have to worry for another, what do you think, 30 years? Yeah, I think we're, it's our kids problem. Yeah, it's our kids problem. We're going to retire, you know, using whatever we use, PHP, right? That's, I'm just kidding. Yeah, it's just like pure C++, like unsafe memory access, like,
Speaker: There's so much nice things about, I'm not sure if it's C++ or the low level languages where you can really get into hot water of accessing a memory allocation that's already in flight or some kind of unsafe thing where C sharp protects you from all that.
Speaker: It's like the world is on fire, right? And C sharp is like a nice bus that you're on. And the driver's like guy from Microsoft is like, you like, you like the curly braces? And then all the kids are like, yeah, you know what I mean? But it's kind of nice because as these higher and higher levels of like abstractions over whatever it compiles down to assembly or whatever, like, of course it's going to get more and more
Speaker: easier to write. Why create another level higher? I'm not sure. Have you seen the language Kotlin? No. Oh, Kotlin, right. That's Google's language, right? Is it a Java replacement?
Speaker: I don't know. I know that it's like either Java base or Java replacement or or just a better way or an easier way of writing that stuff. But it really like for I feel like if if if there's someone out there that loves C sharp and they're looking for like like a mobile native kind of language for Android or whatever it is, like that's a really good. It's a really elegant language. If you look at some of the code examples. Yeah.
Speaker: But it's kind of interesting to think of like, when we do this, we do it in our own little C sharp or VB or whatever the Microsoft bubble, right? Or a PHP, but then you kind of almost don't have the context of like, what is this like to write this in Go or whatever it is, right? But it's kind of interesting to like, when you look at how
Speaker: I'm sure Microsoft does that, too, where if they're implementing a feature, they probably go around and see, all right, who's got the best way of doing this? And then, though, it's almost best to be last in that regard. Yeah. What do you think? That's for sure. That makes sense because you get to pick, right? You get to pick which one's a better solution and implement it, right?
Speaker: Microsoft is really good at doing that, as you know. That's why they're so successful. But no, it's good. I think it's good that they do that. Good for the end user and good for the developer and people using their tools. We need that built upon or that strong foundation.
Speaker: to build right or for them they need the strong foundation to build on for us to have a strong foundation and Something to work with right? But yeah, man Microsoft's I don't know man people talk a lot about you know, put them down but they're doing amazing stuff when it comes to developer or developing and and environments It's almost like lost my train of thought with that whole yeah fair. It's almost like they spend a lot of their time just trying to
Speaker: re -established respect in the community, right? Because of what happened in the past, they have a lot of people like, oh no, that's Microsoft, that's corporate, that's not open source. There's some people I still believe that don't know that Microsoft's .NET's open source and all that stuff, they just think it's all Windows.
Speaker: Um, you know, the things like Matt, sorry. No, no, go on. I'm sorry. I interrupted. I was going to say the things like Maui, we, we just like write, you know, something in blazer and it just publishes six different apps. Yeah. That's amazing. Incredible. Yeah. No, I do. I do love the way they do things. And honestly, man, I, end of the day, I don't know. Love is such a strong word. I don't, maybe I don't love it.
Speaker: you know, I love other things, but not Microsoft per se. But I'd like you got to use the right tool for the job, man. My opinion is know everything, right? And use everything to your advantage when it comes to this, you know, this in this line of work, use everything to your advantage. Use your Microsoft, use your PHP and
Speaker: whatever Google, Go, Kotlin, and Java, whatever you can use, use it. That is my stance on that. So you do a bunch of work in other languages, right? And I think more so than I. Are you finding that when you see examples of
Speaker: Any other language other than C sharp or when you look at a project like a PHP project or any other web project? Yeah, are you finding that? Code base in terms of technical debt is like much higher on the Microsoft's side In terms of like how many projects there are or you know, like what do you think like do you think that based on what you're? developing in now or the languages that you see like are they are they Is it easy to get sucked into you know?
Speaker: that create a new file, create a new project, create a new, like everything's new, new, new. Yeah. No, I think Microsoft does have a huge footprint when it comes to, uh, you know, code, code, I guess, uh, a code footprint, a code print. It's huge. And, uh, compared to like other languages, like PHP, for example, has a, I think there are.
Speaker: It doesn't do the same things. You know, PHP is a lot, has a lot less functionality than, than like a .net. But, um, on a whole, I think it's, it's a lot more, I guess has a lot less code print than Microsoft. Yeah. Um, yeah, I think Microsoft's just, it's a behemoth, right? So yeah, I think PHP is a little bit easier and obviously scripting languages are easier, but, um,
Speaker: Java and C -sharp are kind of the same thing. I worked a lot in obviously VBA and VB. And that is a little more condensed than C -sharp. And I think Microsoft wants to mimic VB, right? They want to kind of switch or mimic V and C -sharp, right?
Speaker: I've noticed that where - Remove the curly braces and stuff like that. Yeah. The curly braces are coming off a lot lately with new C -sharp versions and they're using things like AND and NOT. Yes, exactly. And kind of real language. Those are the features I love from VB .NET, VB, VBA. It's kind of easy to read.
Speaker: with the curly braces off sometimes, it's like, you can't really tell where this is going. But then you have things like crazy where like YAML, where of like an extra space, it just doesn't compile, it doesn't work. Because it's actually, it will mean something completely different if there's an extra space. Like Python, right? Yeah. Oh, Python's like that.
Speaker: But have you programmed in F sharp? No, no, I haven't. That was no, I never I never actually touched that or saw the code. I'm not sure what it looks like. It's F is for functional. I've never programmed in it, but I wonder if it's like. Python. We're like, is Python a lot of like, is it a lot of functional?
Speaker: I think Python is, what does Python remind me of? It reminds me of C, plain old C, man. I don't know, or maybe C++, right? But yeah, it's indentation.
Speaker: You know, obviously matters. Yeah. It matters. Um, there's another programming language that I programmed in. Um, can't remember off top of my head, but it was crappy. I shouldn't say. Right. It was during my college and, uh, we used to for statistics, the stats class, it was called, it was called R yeah. Right. Yeah. And that was, uh, yeah, it was weird, man, but no, I saw a video on, um, this, this programming language called Malborg, right?
Speaker: It was such a cool, cool video. And it's a crazy language. And one day I'll learn it one day. I mean, it's just it interests me. I don't know. I don't know what it is about it. I watched that video of it. It's like I watched it a couple of times. I didn't know what was going on. And then
Speaker: I went back to it to like watch it like a third time I was like oh you made this video I didn't realize it was just like not that I'm saying like it's your stuff is recognizable like it's like oh this is definitely a really video yeah it was just it was just it just hit me on this weird like
Speaker: We're in the matrix level. Yeah, it was very abstract and yeah, my face wasn't in it, but. Right, fair enough. Yeah, it's weird. We're kind of talking about condensed code. That would be the opposite of anything normal or condensed. Yeah, I think there's also, what was it? Fireship did.
Speaker: Like it was a walkthrough on F -U -K -T or something. It's a language where it's like, it's just so hard to write. Well, one guy made it as like, okay, I'll make this thing.
Speaker: It's like so, um, deliberately. Okay. Let's make something go viral. Let's make a language of like, is it, oh, is it better? A fast easier? No, everything's way harder. That was the whole effort as a joke kind of thing. But yeah, if it's on fire ship, um, then.
Speaker: It made it, man. That's prime time. Let's make it on fire, man. Let's create something crazy. Yeah. It's like, uh, Microsoft, uh, kind of, they were all excited under one of the last, uh, community standups, like a couple of weeks ago, they were talking about how when fireship did, uh, blazer as a spot framework. And it was, they, they like lost their, they're like, Oh, they're doing it. Right. Um, and,
Speaker: that was kind of big for them to be kind of recognized in that space because, as you know, Fireship, he's like, you know, more trendy moderns, Bob Frameworks, JavaScript libraries, all that up and coming stuff. And to be kind of put in there, like he's not, we're not, I mean, there's trickles of Blazer in his stuff, but not as much as everything else that's out there.
Speaker: But yes, I do feel that Microsoft's looking at like all of those different JavaScript spa frameworks that Fireship covers and like, oh, what cool features can we put in there? Yeah. Cool. But I mean, the one thing about the code, getting back to code minimalism, is that's one thing I truly feel that Blazor shines on with Microsoft is that
Speaker: You know before or not before like essentially if you have let's say a react project and let's say you have a .net core. Open API swagger. You know set of API controllers or minimal. Minimal APIs then you can use like nswag or some kind of source code generator generate a typescript client for the react front end right so.
Speaker: that in Blazor, you can still do, it'll just generate the C Sharp one. That will also generate models and DTOs in TypeScript. But with Blazor, because you can have a shared project between the API and the front -end, and just put your DTOs in it, and it's just all C Sharp, meaning that you don't have to take the C Sharp and trans -compile it down to TypeScript, and then there's no
Speaker: there's no serialization, so to speak, conceptually. Well, I guess everything's like JSON across the wire in HTTP 1 and 2. You don't want to necessarily serialize it a different way and have variability in serialization. Then the other cool thing is if you have a shared project between your front -end and your back -end,
Speaker: Let's say you have a company DTO with a company name and a company type. If you wanted to add another property on there like company icon class, let's say it's like a view model or something, as soon as you add it to that shared project, they both get the benefit. So the backend could populate it or the front end could populate it, whatever. But it's just kind of nice because it's all C sharp.
Speaker: Yeah. Yeah, man. That's good. Well, what time is it? Are we, uh, are we on time? Yes. That's pretty good. What do we do? So, uh, I can't see a timestamp anywhere. Uh, 42 minutes. Yeah, that's good for now. Um, so basically, um, try to do this once a week and, um,
Speaker: kind of going over, like really, what are we gonna go over? What are the four things that could play, you know, anyone watching this first episode, it's like, hey, do I continue watching? What else are these guys gonna talk about? All right, so basically our topics for this show are, as follows, we are going to speak about programming, coding in general, which we did today.
Speaker: and various technical topics, not limited to programming. I mean, we could talk about artificial intelligence. It's a whole gambit of technical aspects of society we will talk about. We'll talk about culture, origin of words, sociological impact of language and mannerisms.
Speaker: We're also going to talk about games, video games, in -game philosophy, lore, architecture of video games, and the hardware that plays them. Another topic would be pharmacology. We're going to talk about genetics, routine diets, supplements, toxins, recovery, and mental health. So these are the wide range of topics we're going to speak about.
Speaker: and delve into them deeply for the hour that we have together. Right. And the technology part plays in all of them as well. Yes, exactly. So if there's a technology change, the entertainment will change. If there's a health change, then potentially technology will change, right? They're all kind of like a Venn diagram of this podcast. Maybe that should be the, uh, that's what we're going to create next, a Venn diagram. Thanks everyone. See you next time. Thanks everybody. See you next time.
