> Instead of googling for the site, I google for the site's Wikipedia article
This seems like a bit of unfortunate wording – there does not seem to be a Google search involved, just a search directly on Wikipedia (the English version).
Yeah, I might use “googling” to mean generic web search in everyday language, but I wouldn’t use it to refer to a site’s internal search function, and I wouldn’t use it at all in a technical description of some software.
I understood that statement as an example of author's workflow before the existance of this addon, as in instead of googling for the site directly, he would rather google for the Wikipedia's article of the site and find the correct URL there.
Testcontainers is not shelling out to the docker CLI; at least on Java, it is using a Java implementation of the docker network protocol, and I believe that’s the case also for the other platforms.
Not sure this matters for the core argument you are making, just thought I’d point it out.
The comment you are replying to makes so many mistakes about how Testcontainers works on Java that I'm not sure what source code the commenter is looking at.
Which is a perfectly fine counter-argument if you are, in fact, not going it right.
If you say you're doing continuous deployment because you deploy every Tuesday evening, it's perfectly fair to point out that that's not continuous deployment.
Of course, you should follow it up by explaining why as well, but many companies don't actually follow the agile principles.
This is a digression from the original topic, but my criticism of agile is in fact that nobody is doing it right. If the majority of companies that attempt it end up just wasting extra time, the process itself is broken.
I don't think you can claim that. It's the fate of most popular systems. they end up being poorly explained in elevators or adopted based on a blog article rather than investing the few hours or days or weeks to understand what made the process originally successful. It's so common we have a term for it: cargo culting. I don't think you can fault agile for the tribally-spread BS most places do today where points == hours. If anything, you can maybe fault it for seeming a bit too familiar and simple when there are a few important nuances.
Using quotation marks as a way of summarizing what someone might say but didn't literally say is a fairly common practice. I think the quotation is a fairly accurate depiction of the sentiment in the comment it responds to, so I don't see any issue with it.
It may be common, but that doesn't mean it's warranted. Logical fallacies, for example, are also common (so are spelling and grammar mistakes), and yet personally I prefer to commit them less often rather than more often. You think the quotation is a fairly accurate depiction of the sentiment expressed by another person. I don't think that. In fact, I think the opposite. One way to settle the matter would be to ask the person.
What do you say, doctorpangloss? Do you think this is a fairly accurate depiction of the sentiment you were expressing?
"this is wrong, but I'm not gonna explain why"
I doubt this person will respond, of course (they're not obliged to).
> It may be common, but that doesn't mean it's warranted. Logical fallacies, for example, are also common (so are spelling and grammar mistakes), and yet personally I prefer to commit them less often rather than more often. You think the quotation is a fairly accurate depiction of the sentiment expressed by another person.
This works both ways; your questions phrasing assumed that the person you responded to felt the same way about how quotation marks should be used. It seems likely that you knew the answer was that they weren't intending to literally quote anyone, but you didn't ask them about that first, which is why it comes across as passive-aggressive.
For clarity, this is the comment that the quote was referring to:
> The comment you are replying to makes so many mistakes about how Testcontainers works on Java that I'm not sure what source code the commenter is looking at.
The comment quite literally calls something wrong ("The comment you are replying to makes so many mistakes"), and it doesn't give any evidence to the claim that there are "so many mistakes" to explain this. When someone says one thing and then claims that it shouldn't be taken literally because they intended something entirely different, that's called gaslighting.
It doesn't matter if it interfaces via CLI or not. Testcontainers tends to make things work but also introduces difficulty in resolution. You seem to have missed the point.
This is what I’ve been doing for years, with some aliases to set work or personal. But honestly, I’ve started to find it annoying enough (for those first commits) to start wanting something else; yet still not annoying enough for me to research a different solution. Seeing this post, I’ll probably switch to the ”includeIf” way!
At the moment Kotlin only has smart casts and exhaustive type checking (e.g., making sure you didn't forget a switch case). It doesn't let you destructure records, add guards to cases, etc.
