@angelmunoz@misskey.cloud I was expecting someth...
@angelmunoz@misskey.cloud I was expecting something like this but it doesn't make sense to me because this makes building robust APIs unnecessarily hard. That way you can't send the client a useful error. They didn't have to throw an exception, they could just have null-ed the property in question. Having a null property could point the client towards the right direct while an null object leaves everybody in the dark.
@alexzeitler@mastodon.social Yeah I totally agree, I often prefer to just manually deserialize the body myself for such reasons which I guess falls into the "unnecessarily hard" category.
however, making the properties null would bring friction with F# records though, right? I can see myself getting null pointer exceptions because my non-optional property was actually null
Funny now that I installed threads on the Windows subsystem for Android I tried other apps but it is so weird to see adds in "apps" in windows it feels quite surreal, I guess adds make sense in mobile but in windows... they feel quite out of place
@alexzeitler@mastodon.social I have memory glimp...
@alexzeitler@mastodon.social I have memory glimpses of this in the other site =, someone from the team mentioned that binding was not the same as validation and rather than throwing exceptions there which could be costly (if aspnet did it so they left it to userland) it would just not bind that was more-less the reasoning.
pick that with a grain of salt as I can'f find the tweets
@angelmunoz@misskey.cloud I was expecting something like this but it doesn't make sense to me because this makes building robust APIs unnecessarily hard. That way you can't send the client a useful error. They didn't have to throw an exception, they could just have null-ed the property in question. Having a null property could point the client towards the right direct while an null object leaves everybody in the dark.
TIL if a JSON property of an object has the wron...
TIL if a JSON property of an object has the wrong type, #aspnetcore model binding silently fails and doesn't create an instance at all.
Doesn't make sense to me but I might be wrong.
Repro - expect an int, send a string 🔥
@alexzeitler@mastodon.social I have memory glimpses of this in the other site =, someone from the team mentioned that binding was not the same as validation and rather than throwing exceptions there which could be costly (if aspnet did it so they left it to userland) it would just not bind that was more-less the reasoning.
pick that with a grain of salt as I can'f find the tweets
One thing I'll be very much troubled by in my An...
One thing I'll be very much troubled by in my Android learning experience is the UI aspect...
I'm, fairly sure I'll find the standard way to do MVVM, FRP and whatsoever, I always focus in making the thing work even if it looks ugly that's my jam... If it wasn't because CSS is so lenient and easy to work with (if you give it the proper chance) I'm fairly sure I would have stopped doing Frontend work years ago.
In jetpack compose I still haven't gone to learn how to work with that but I feel like it won't be so simple
@angelmunoz@misskey.cloud it’s not so bad. I’d say flutter is more intuitive and easier to learn though.
One thing I'll be very much troubled by in my Android learning experience is the UI aspect...
I'm, fairly sure I'll find the standard way to do MVVM, FRP and whatsoever, I always focus in making the thing work even if it looks ugly that's my jam... If it wasn't because CSS is so lenient and easy to work with (if you give it the proper chance) I'm fairly sure I would have stopped doing Frontend work years ago.
In jetpack compose I still haven't gone to learn how to work with that but I feel like it won't be so simple
Jetbrains builds incredible tooling to be honest
This sounds outlandish, but it would be neat in ...
This sounds outlandish, but it would be neat in #csharp if you could “name” Func variables and return values.
This would give tooling and developers an idea of what to expect when constructing a lambda. #dotnet
@khalidabuhakmeh@mastodon.social mildly related added to what you just mentioned I'd love to also be able to name parameters in F# function type signatures e.g.
type MyFunc = name: string -> age: int -> Person
currently you can only pass string and age only
I think that's another reason people don't use function type signatures often in any of the langs, what is string? what is int? it can be doc'stringed for sure but it would be nice to add that extra
This sounds outlandish, but it would be neat in ...
This sounds outlandish, but it would be neat in #csharp if you could “name” Func variables and return values.
This would give tooling and developers an idea of what to expect when constructing a lambda. #dotnet
@khalidabuhakmeh@mastodon.social mildly related added to what you just mentioned I'd love to also be able to name parameters in F# function type signatures e.g.
type MyFunc = name: string -> age: int -> Person
currently you can only pass string and age only
I think that's another reason people don't use function type signatures often in any of the langs, what is string? what is int? it can be doc'stringed for sure but it would be nice to add that extra
This sounds outlandish, but it would be neat in ...
This sounds outlandish, but it would be neat in #csharp if you could “name” Func variables and return values.
This would give tooling and developers an idea of what to expect when constructing a lambda. #dotnet
@khalidabuhakmeh@mastodon.social mildly related added to what you just mentioned I'd love to also be able to name parameters in F# function type signatures e.g.
type MyFunc = name: string -> age: int -> Person
currently you can only pass string and age only
I think that's another reason people don't use function type signatures often in any of the langs, what is string? what is int? it can be doc'stringed for sure but it would be nice to add that extra