Now that you mention it, this might be why my family stopped playing Rack-O with me

Could they calculate and show an estimate of the monthly charges based on current objects in the bucket before and after the change in storage class? OP may still have clicked through w/o heeding, but I can see that as a potential improvement to the warning message where a user would then be forced to understand why it didn't affect pricing in the way they assumed it would.

While I would love to see AWS do this for most things, in this case, it would have resulted in a UI that said something like "Increased monthly cost expected to be $50", and I'm sure they would have read that as "Expected monthly cost change to $50"

But an estimated cost for many things in the console would be a welcome sanity check.

You can write a list data structure with performant 'delete' properties if you're willing to maintain a sort or a hash table. There would be people here bitching about memory usage if the stdlib did that natively. Here's a solution: don't use list.delete. You're using the wrong data structure if that's your solution to whatever collection you're maintaining.

We have this saying in my country "if grandma had a mustache she'd be a grandpa".

I like my country's version better: "if grandma had wheels she'd be a bicycle".

Which language/country is this?

I will use this in English regardless. I like it.

Mexican Spanish. I don't know if they also use that saying in other Spanish speaking countries besides Mexico. In Spanish it goes: "Si mi abuelita tuviera ruedas, sería bicicleta".

If your aunt had nuts she'd be your uncle

That has the same basic idea as the mustache version, but is pithier. I still prefer the surrealism of the bicycle.

You'd probably do better on HN to substitute 'decrying' for 'bitching'.

Noted, thanks. Didn't realize that was the issue.

This problem transcends documentation of any given language's standard library. list.delete(value) in any programming language is a degenerate without an ordering or hash built-in to the underlying data structure.

If you ever need to delete based on value, it's a smell that a list is the wrong data structure. I'm sure there are cases in constrained environments where a linear search is heuristically okay, but generally in application development list.delete(value) is a hint that you're using the wrong data structure.

Good point. I guess the reason the author finds removing from lists to be relevant is because there is no Set structure in the Go standard library. They should use a `map[t]bool`, but that is non-obvious to many programmers.

My Google search suggests that maps in Go aren’t ordered. If so this doesn’t work in place of an array.

`map[t]struct{}` saves you a few bytes per entry. Just use the `_,found := foo[key]` form of lookup

Unfortunately, map[t]bool (or map[t]struct{}) only works for special structs that happen to have equality defined for them. It's not a general purpose solution, it's just a hack.

map[t]struct{} so that the values don't require any space.

Yep, it makes it easier to port the JRE to platforms like Windows that have an entirely different TZ system. Python, for example, has the same problem. Historically, Python took the stance of providing a "naive" datetime module that provides a conversion API, but delegated the actual TZ conversion to external implementations (dateutil, pytz). Only recently (as of 3.9) have they added a stdlib implementation that uses system-level zoneinfo by default.

Not sure if lower-level API of RQ supports this, but I tend to prefer message-oriented jobs that don't couple the web app to the task handler like the example.

I don't want to import "count_words_at_url" just to make it a "job" because that couples my web app runtime to whatever the job module needs to import even though the web app runtime doesn't care how the job is handled.

I want to send a message "count-words" with the URL in the body of the message and let a worker pick that up off the queue and handle it however it decides without the web app needing any knowledge of the implementation. The web app and worker app can have completely different runtime environments that evolve/scale independently.

Agreed - which is why I don't put my business logic in the webapp, or use models coupled to the web framework.

The web framework is a way to handle http, rest, or graphql - deserializing and serializing those protocols, not a way to handle my business logic.

Decoupling these things lets you write one-off scripts or have task queues that don't need to load the context of a large web framework - they can just be simple python.

Docs say you can pass a string instead of a function.

I don't think they're proposing this for anything other than a prototyping solution along the lines of this:

http://xip.io/

There are cases where you simply want to use a name during development because it generalizes better for the eventual production case, but you don't care what the name is, you don't care if anyone can memorize it, you just need it to be a name and not an IP address.

I'm guessing you are referring to the "config needs a hostname" problem. Been there myself.

> a ton of consumers

So like 12 average adults? /s

You're making a good underlying point but contriving way too many details in your argument for it to be taken seriously.

Let's not pretend that hosting an OSS chat server is a walk in the park for every enterprise just because you personally got one up and running in a weekend.

Let's not pretend that building one from scratch isn't at least an order of magnitude harder, either.

I'm not necessarily in the 'build one from scratch' camp either, I'm just pointing out that there's a trilemma in enterprise systems. How fast you're able to get something up and running is just one factor and not always the most important one.

Looking at this from Spain, you did do this over the weekend. I also work 6 days a week—but my hope is that this didn’t take the place of building a family, having a relationship, finding a relationship going for a hike in the mountains, citizen science, or making art. Your weekend is valuable!

You're totally right that the weekend is valuable, but some people enjoy doing this sort of thing with their free time. It's not anyone's place to decide what anyone else does for entertainment or self improvement. That is to say - what is not valuable to you might be valuable to someone else.

My comment isn't concerned with using 'personal' time for such endeavors. My concern is with the implicit conclusion that how fast you can get something up and running (a 'weekend' in this case) is an argument that you can and should deploy a new stack in any given enterprise.

You'll find a lot of times the champion of the new hotness moves on and leaves someone else to maintain the old hotness at costs that were never factored into the original deployment.

As I noted in another comment, it's a trilemma where you have to pick and choose your battles. The initial deployment time is rarely the most important factor when introducing a new stack within an organization.

When large MMO guilds have had a mostly trouble free chat client that supports a few thousand concurrent users on the free time and good will of admins I'm loathe to believe that this shit is impossible

I'm not sure how you read from my comment that I'm saying 'this shit is impossible'. I'm simply saying in many organizations 'how fast the intern got it up and running' is not always a valid indicator of how ready it is to be deployed to a few thousand concurrent users.

For example, large MMO guilds have a quite different regulatory environment from, say, a large healthcare organization in the US governed by HIPAA. It's an extreme example, sure, but a homegrown, dumbed down solution, might be the only way to ensure regulatory compliance.

It doesn't take a lot of imagination to come up with other scenarios. I can't defend Uber doing it because I'm not involved, but large MMO guilds are not archetypal of enterprise systems.

The funny thing about your comment is that Slack was born out of a MMO game.