Post B9GsBZMAnQJeJsWtdo by ariadne@social.treehouse.systems
 (DIR) More posts by ariadne@social.treehouse.systems
 (DIR) Post #B9GsBZMAnQJeJsWtdo by ariadne@social.treehouse.systems
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       basically i think that software should not help you shoot yourself in the foot and instead help you find solutions that don't shoot yourself in the foot
       
 (DIR) Post #B9GspE5BJOopvGUY3E by innocentzero@kbin.earth
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       How to diss all of C and C++ communities at once
       
 (DIR) Post #B9GspEJ0TzsUc8xabI by ariadne@social.treehouse.systems
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @innocentzero i disagree.  i write plenty of software in C that does not shoot anyone in the foot.
       
 (DIR) Post #B9Gt7fXNyRWwHjTiCW by DoomHammerNG@mastodon.social
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @ariadne radical
       
 (DIR) Post #B9gD728MtOXR5IcAoi by tknarr@mstdn.social
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @ariadne How about software that doesn't help you shoot yourself in the foot, or guide you in that direction, but that if you _do_ decide you really have to shoot yourself in the foot does it as efficiently and cleanly as everything else?
       
 (DIR) Post #B9gFAcscvZWZpN5o6S by ariadne@social.treehouse.systems
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @tknarr this post is about not including antifeatures in software.  to do what you propose, we would have to include antifeatures in software.
       
 (DIR) Post #B9gVqvFCdg88DCqJDE by tknarr@mstdn.social
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @ariadne I'd argue that features that will let you shoot yourself in the foot aren't antifeatures just because of that. Ones that'll let you do that unintentionally or without any sort of warning, those probably are. I just find a lot of features very useful for someone who knows what they're doing that'll also let you do a lot of damage if you don't. I prefer those features to be well-thought-out and working well.
       
 (DIR) Post #B9gWP0v62k9Hf1h6My by ariadne@social.treehouse.systems
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @tknarr look man, the antifeature i am talking about in particular is unencrypted DMs in social apps.  if you can't understand why this is bad, please just stop interacting with me
       
 (DIR) Post #B9gYWl8enkHKwOrGVc by tknarr@mstdn.social
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @ariadne I can agree with never implementing that, yeah. I can think of a use case for it, yes, but I'll still argue it shouldn't be implemented.C89/C90 would be more what I was thinking.