A decade after throwing open its borders to millions of migrants, Germany is now proof Farage's deportation flights pledge can work, writes SUE REID
Passenger blames parents for 'WORST experience' flying sat next to a child
Colchester Council's warning as swathes of St George Crosses painted over roads
Wild moment Bob Katter threatens a journalist with his FIST after simple question sets him off at a press conference: 'Don't say that'
Essex man arrested after suspected cocaine found during police patrol stop
Essex man arrested after suspected cocaine found during police patrol stop
Man caught red handed with 20 bags of suspected drugs found in car in Halstead
Disgusting final plea made by Minnesota school shooter in suicide note before slaughtering two children at mass
Japan Launches its First Homegrown Quantum Computer
Read more of this story at Slashdot.
I've finished shopping for Christmas and Halloween in August - trolls think I'm missing the point but they're the ones losing out
How two best friends are fighting horrifying injuries after being hit by a speeding taxi in Ibiza - and the fight to get them home to their children
Airgun attack on Jewish teenager and swastikas daubed on Rabbi's homes put Bournemouth police on alert
MAUREEN CALLAHAN: Meghan's latest feat of failure is basic, humorless and so nauseatingly fake. But was this 'sick burn' the moment she finally admitted defeat?
Representative Line: Springs are Optional
Optional types are an attempt to patch the "billion dollar mistake". When you don't know if you have a value or not, you wrap it in an Optional, which ensures that there is a value (the Optional itself), thus avoiding null reference exceptions. Then you can query the Optional to see if there is a real value or not.
This is all fine and good, and can cut down on some bugs. Good implementations are loaded with convenience methods which make it easy to work on the optionals.
But then, you get code like Burgers found. Which just leaves us scratching our heads:
private static final Optional<Boolean> TRUE = Optional.of(Boolean.TRUE); private static final Optional<Boolean> FALSE = Optional.of(Boolean.FALSE);Look, any time you're making constants for TRUE or FALSE, something has gone wrong, and yes, I'm including pre-1999 versions of C in this. It's especially telling when you do it in a language that already has such constants, though- at its core- these lines are saying TRUE = TRUE. Yes, we're wrapping the whole thing in an Optional here, which potentially is useful, but if it is useful, something else has gone wrong.
Burgers works for a large insurance company, and writes this about the code:
I was trying to track down a certain piece of code in a Spring web API application when I noticed something curious. It looked like there was a chunk of code implementing an application-specific request filter in business logic, totally ignoring the filter functions offered by the framework itself and while it was not related to the task I was working on, I followed the filter apply call to its declaration. While I cannot supply the entire custom request filter implementation, take these two static declarations as a demonstration of how awful the rest of the class is.
Ah, of course- deep down, someone saw a perfectly functional wheel and said, "I could make one of those myself!" and these lines are representative of the result.
REBECCA ENGLISH reveals the withering comment a royal insider secretly made about Meghan Markle's new Netflix show in the Palace Confidential newsletter
Inside Prince Harry and Prince William's surprise reunion for Diana's brother-in-law's funeral... and the courtier complex relationship with the Firm, according to royal author
Missing 12-year-old autistic boy believed to be killed in alligator attack near New Orleans home
What a difference 2 years makes: MariaDB buys back SkySQL
It's less than two years since MariaDB spun out SkySQL, but it's already unspinning the database-as-a-service outfit, which has since been marinated in AI sauce.…