Reddit Programming
195 subscribers
1.22K photos
127K links
I will send you newest post from subreddit /r/programming
Download Telegram
The need for new words/terms as the antidote to bad software
https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1uqci17/the_need_for_new_wordsterms_as_the_antidote_to/

<!-- SC_OFF -->I'll preface to say I'm not at all a programmer, so pardon me for saying anything stupid The increasing amount of slop is no secret, and but software as a whole, be it plugins or apps or even whole operating systems, has become increasing plagued by a set of kinda-unrelated problems that feel like they fall under the same umbrella. I'll keep it short, so practical issues of efficiency, privacy, security, and long-term support, and then ethical issues of being human-made. I personally believe that we're in need of novel, widespread terms to be able to describe the kind of software that in principle does not have certain traits. I attached the link because I believe the term "open source" is analagous to what I'm talking about here. Everybody has an idea of what it means and entails, but it also doesn't mean that everything has to strictly follow it to a T, because it's just a word at the end of the day. It's a pledge to the user to abide by principles of being "Open Source," and I'm saying that we need new words that similarly serve as principles such as that of, optimization, long-term support, being human-made, etc. (It's kind of like how we have terms like organic, free-run eggs, free range eggs, and of course you would end up with having a bunch of terms that dont mean anything at all, but i'm confident that a few will emerge as "standards" in the same way the term open source is.) This could go hand-in-hand with maybe making it common practice to at least disclose the development process when publishing software. In (science) research, we're beginning to see the implementation of "AI Disclosures" to detail all such usage, to be published with the paper. surely practices like these should be encouraged in software development as well. I'm sure there are (smaller) discussions on what exactly should constitute as "best practices" to the people that care about such things, but I've yet to see mainstream terms that go beyond only vaguely describing what we dont like ("slop"). I hope you enjoyed reading, I'd love to hear your thoughts, I dont really have programmer friends to ask about this lol <!-- SC_ON --> submitted by /u/Realistic-Worker-499 (https://www.reddit.com/user/Realistic-Worker-499)
[link] (https://opensource.org/) [comments] (https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1uqci17/the_need_for_new_wordsterms_as_the_antidote_to/)
GitHub's "Verified" commit badge isn't always the trust signal developers think it is
https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1uqje4g/githubs_verified_commit_badge_isnt_always_the/

<!-- SC_OFF -->I recently read some interesting research on GitHub's Verified commit workflow. The issue isn't a break in Git, GPG, or commit signing itself, but rather how the Verified badge can be interpreted in certain edge cases. It's a good reminder that a cryptographically valid signature doesn't automatically establish the provenance or intent of a commit. Here's a technical breakdown covering how the trust model works, the affected scenarios, GitHub's response, and what maintainers can do to avoid relying solely on the Verified badge during code review. <!-- SC_ON --> submitted by /u/NapierPalm (https://www.reddit.com/user/NapierPalm)
[link] (https://thecybersecguru.com/news/github-verified-commit-vulnerability/) [comments] (https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1uqje4g/githubs_verified_commit_badge_isnt_always_the/)
Unicode's Transliteration Rules Are Turing-Complete
https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1uqny65/unicodes_transliteration_rules_are_turingcomplete/

<!-- SC_OFF -->I've been wondering for a while if anything in Unicode could accidentally compute. It turns out that UTS #35 transliteration rules are Turing-complete. I show how to compute Collatz with just 3 rewrite rules running on stock ICU, shipped with every major OS. <!-- SC_ON --> submitted by /u/Dull_Replacement8890 (https://www.reddit.com/user/Dull_Replacement8890)
[link] (https://seriot.ch/computation/uts35/) [comments] (https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1uqny65/unicodes_transliteration_rules_are_turingcomplete/)
Postgres is enough for more than we admit
https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1us129c/postgres_is_enough_for_more_than_we_admit/

<!-- SC_OFF -->I came across this on Hacker News and felt like I needed to share it with the dev community. The main point is simple: a lot of teams reach for extra databases, queues, search engines, caches, and services before they actually need them. This page lays out where Postgres is usually enough, and where you may actually need something else: https://postgresisenough.dev/ Postgres is not perfect for everything, but it is good enough for a surprising amount of real-world work. The more I build and maintain systems, the more I appreciate boring infrastructure that is easy to debug, monitor, back up, and reason about. This hit a nerve for me because I have seen stacks become harder to operate not because the product needed that complexity, but because the architecture was designed for future scale that never arrived. Curious how others here think about this. Where do you draw the line between “Postgres is enough” and falling into the sprawl trap? <!-- SC_ON --> submitted by /u/danieltabrizian (https://www.reddit.com/user/danieltabrizian)
[link] (https://postgresisenough.dev/) [comments] (https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1us129c/postgres_is_enough_for_more_than_we_admit/)
Integrating .NET GC in your C++ application
https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1uuk1c5/integrating_net_gc_in_your_c_application/

<!-- SC_OFF -->.NET appears as large monolith where everything is working like a magic. But it is not, and even GC can be used outside of .NET runtime (obviously with caveat). When I was a kid, I always love disassemble things, to see how they works. Not always toys survive that exercise. But thanks to source control, .NET GC is safe from my hands. Hopefully lot of people like me, and will enjoy tearing down large system into pieces. <!-- SC_ON --> submitted by /u/kant2002 (https://www.reddit.com/user/kant2002)
[link] (https://kant2002.github.io/en/dotnet/open-source/2026/07/12/dotnet-gc.html) [comments] (https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1uuk1c5/integrating_net_gc_in_your_c_application/)