Status 200 for errors is common for non-REST HTTP APIs. An application error isn’t an HTTP error, the request and response were both handled successfully.
Status 200 for errors is common for non-REST HTTP APIs. An application error isn’t an HTTP error, the request and response were both handled successfully.
There may be a need for additional information, there just isn’t any in these responses. Using a basic JSON schema like the Problem Details RFC provides a standard way to add that information if necessary. Error codes are also often too general to have an application specific meaning. For example, is a “400 bad request” response caused by a malformed payload, a syntactically valid but semantically invalid payload, or what? Hence you put some data in the response body.
I’m speaking my truth. XR Adderall, crack em open and pour em on me tongue. The caviar of stimulants
My only time-release capsule is filled with little beads, I just pop it open and eat the beads like pop rocks
I’ve been taking 6+ pills a day for years and still can’t get myself to swallow them. I just chew everything. Tasty painkillers and caffeine.
This should be done with font ligatures, not replacing character combinations with other characters that can’t be typed normally
It’s a reach, but the Fourier transformation of a Schwarz (rapidly decaying) function is also a Schwarz function. Compact support is a strictly stronger condition than Schwarz (the function must eventually decay to 0) but doesn’t have this nice property with respect to Fourier transforms, i.e. the FT of a compactly supported function is Schwarz but not necessarily compactly supported
I’m stuck on the homological algebra exercise
Once every 50 years or so
If my cooking senses are right, it would be like cooking bacon in a stainless steel pan, which is sticky and burny but not impossible
Don’t think it saves bandwidth unless it’s a DNS level block, which IT should also do but separately from uBO
No, it isn’t
You’re making assumptions about the control flow in a hypothetical piece of code…
What you’re saying is “descriptive method names aren’t a substitute for knowing how the code works.” That’s once again just a basic fact. It’s not “hiding,” it’s “organization.” Organization makes it easier to take a high level view of the code, it doesn’t preclude you from digging in at a lower level.
No, your argument is equally applicable to all methods. The idea that a method hides implementation details is not a real criticism, it’s just a basic fact.
No, not “almost every modern developer thinks inheritance is just bad.” They recognize that “prefer composition over inheritance” has merit. That doesn’t mean inheritance is itself a bad thing, just a situational one. The .NET and Java ecosystems are built out of largely object-oriented designs.
You realize this is just an argument against methods?
Java is a fine choice. Much prefer it over pseudocode.
It’s possible to have an equiangular quadrilateral, i.e. whose sides are geodesics (the analogue of “straight line” on a sphere). The Gauss-Bonnet theorem implies their total interior angle is greater than 2pi, so four right angles can’t work.
Here’s an interactive demo of quadrilaterals on the sphere: https://geogebra.org/m/q83rUj8r
Notice that each side is a segment of a great circle, i.e. a circle that divides the sphere in half. That’s what it means for a path to be a geodesic on the sphere.
It’s called speed of lobsters