▲ | pshirshov 4 days ago | |||||||||||||||||||
Pure bullshit and incompetence. > esoteric things like Bloom filters, so you can find them later in the unlikely case you need them. They are not esoteric, they are trivial and extremely useful in many cases. > Less DSA, more testing. Testing can't cover all the cases by definition, why not property testing? Why not formal proofs? Plus, in our days, it's easy to delegate testcase writing to LLMs, while they literally cannot invent new useful AnDS. | ||||||||||||||||||||
▲ | cogman10 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | |||||||||||||||||||
> extremely useful in many cases. I've not ran into a case where I can apply a bloom filter. I keep looking because it always seems like it'd be useful. The problem I have is bloom filter has practically reverse characteristics from what I want. It gives false positives and true negatives. I most often want true positives and false negatives. | ||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||
▲ | burnt-resistor 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | |||||||||||||||||||
It's a strawman besmirching niche knowledge for methodology. The two aren't mutex and shouldn't be competitors. Bloom filters are really trivial to implement and are great examples of time/space tradeoffs, and are useful mostly for checking if a key isn't a member of an otherwise expensive lookup operation and so can be avoided early. What's more concerning is "engineers" incurious about how lower levels of the stack work, or aren't interested in learning breadth, depth, or new things. |