reverting main back to master
Yeah…this one is sadly on brand
Sadly? Master branch never implied the existence of a slave branch. It was one of the dumbest pieces of woke incursion into tech.
Yes exactly. It’s a reference to the recording industry’s practice of calling the final version of an album the “master” which gets sent for duplication.
That’s just not true. It originally came from Bitkeeper’s terminology, which had a master branch and slave branches.
Not according to pasky, the git contributor who picked the names.
But why even? There’s no risk to changing it and some risk to keeping it. That’s the reason for the push to change it. Keeping something just because it’s tradition isn’t a good idea outside ceremonies.
I don’t accept that because everyone’s doing it or “group-think” are valid excuses do jump on a trend. Things like this maybe don’t seem like a big deal for you but for those that hate this culture it’s just one more example of a dumb change being shoved down their throats. This could also be the straw that breaks the camels back.
They have a reason. You just don’t like it.
They do, and you’re right. Morality policing and prigs are not my thing.
It’s the principle of letting uneducated people dictate what words are acceptable to us
letting uneducated people
More like overeducated people
overeducated people who can’t see that “master” has multiple meanings.
What makes you think they’re uneducated?
There is definitely a risk in changing it. Many automation systems that assume there is a master branch needed to be changed. Something that’s trivial yes but changing a perfectly running system is always a potential risk.
Also stuff like tutorials and documentation become outdated.
If they can’t change what’s essentially a variable name without issues then should they be doing the job?
In assessing risk assume everyone is a bumbling idiot. For we all have moments of great stupidity.
pray tell me how would you change the name in every script of an automation system that refers to master? Remember, you have to justify the time and cost to your manager or director!
Main branches will be renamed Master
Arrays not starting at 1 bother me. I think the entrenched 0-based index is more important than any major push to use 1 instead, but if I could go back in time and change it I would.
It really doesn’t make sense to start at 1 as the value is really the distance from the start and would screw up other parts of indexing and counters.
It would screw up existing code but doing [array.length() -1] is pretty stupid.
For i = 0; I < array.length; i++
It doesn’t make sense that the fourth element is element number 3 either.
Ultimately it’s just about you being used to it.
GTFOH with that. 1-indexed arrays?! You monster.
(Mostly joking… Ok, somewhat joking :P )
How is arrays starting at 1 still a controversial take. Arrays should start at 1 and offsets at 0.
Arrays are address offsets.
From this point on, all arrays are reverse-indexed.
♾️-0 ♾️-1 …
Hey now, you know that according to the Bible the biggest number is a million. Anything larger than that including infinity is some of that “woke shit”.
Your array will be 999,999, 999,998, 999,997 …
