>That deprecated usage should be replaced before it is removed; and if we're talking about skipping multiple major versions over a long period, the replacement likely didn't exist in the older version, so this method still wouldn't work.
the answer to that problem in this approach is to do multiple step upgrades, rather than skipping
serious frameworks/languages do not remove methods in the same version that introduces a replacement, that's the point of having a deprecation mechanism in the first place
> the answer to that problem in this approach is to do multiple step upgrades, rather than skipping
That's what I said
> That deprecated usage (of the thing being deprecated) should be replaced (in your code, with the thing that replaced it, in the language/library) before it (the deprecated thing in the language/library) is removed (from the language/library);
The example in OP was that they were upgrading major versions after-the-fact, so they've missed the transition period (say, 2 major versions, after which deprecations are removed).
In my experience it has often not been beneficial to try and upgrade through multiple versions after the fact, when instead a big-bang update provides opportunities to improve the overall structure and quality of the code, because those things that were deprecated were done for a reason, and the thing being upgraded may have improved significantly in structure, usage, performance, etc in that time.
The Boots theory is funny because it's absurd. It's not actually applicable to life in powerty. There is no class of items where if you are poor you spend more on it than when you're wealthy. People in poverty spend more _time_ on things, yeah, but not more money or money per use.
All items are cheaper in bulk, so the class of items that are more expensive for poor people is actually pretty much everything.
Being poor means your friends and family and roommates and neighbors are also broke, so you can't buy in bulk because they gonna steal yo shit. So you're forced to buy singles, which are more expensive. Being able to store the bulk goods from a CostCo run without them walking off is a privilege that you're taking for granted.
I see somethign similar to this in poor countries I've visited. people who are very poor don't have enough money to maintain a bank account so they just store cash. they have a mindset of spending what they have and never saving. I thought it was stupid till I realized that having a bunch of cash at home just makes you a target for getting robbed. SO you end up with people who spend as soon as they have over a certain amount of money because they never have enough to open a bank account. if you try to save enough for a bank account, there's a good chance the money will be stolen before you even get that far.
Ridiculous that banking isn't free. I never pay banking fees. But also.. it's the poor that get hit with the NSF fees and high interest rates which is also predatory.
The US would be included in that category. The problem is that NSF fees are legal, and when you're close to the edge of your money, the payroll company having a problem and taking an extra day to deposit your paycheck, or two extra weeks at the start of a new job, means that the bank account gets hit with several NSF fees that you can't ever pay back, so you just have to let the account get closed for being overdrawn.
If you step back a bit from the boots example you can see the boots theory in action.
Consider socks (I know there's another thread that calls this a 'micro-optimization', likely right, but still...).
Never buy a pair of socks. Or, never buy one pair of socks -- buy a few packs, identical, well priced, and ideally on sale. If on sale, buy them now: if they're clearance, you may not get to come back tomorrow. Now you save:
- money: when one sock wears out, you don't need to discard an orphan. Also,
if they are prone to early wearing out, you get enough warning to look for
another sale.
- time: when sorting, you don't need to match individual socks --- the
green ones all match
But a dozen or more pairs of socks looks like an investment when you are on minimum wage.
It's only not true because once you have money you're instinctively driven to advertise that to other people, meaning you'll spend money on items that say "I can afford these". But I certainly know of people who incorporate "buying well and buying once" into their general financial strategy and do well out of it. However I disagree it means they spend less time on things - even expensive well-made items need time invested into their maintenance to truly last (something I acknowledge despite being woefully bad at looking after almost anything I own).
Hmm, there were many things in the UK that used to have essentially rental kind of options that were much more expensive in the long run (TVs and sofas) as well as energy being more expensive if you were poor (prepayment meters). The last one is still true, but much more limited now.
You don't need starvation level poverty though, remember the comparison point is with a salaried captain of the police. So if the point was "they don't spend more because they can't buy any shoes" it doesn't relate to the original Pratchett bit.
You should go to a Midwest Dollar General and buy a days worth of food for a family of 5 and report back on if you think the theory still doesn't apply.
it's true of household supplies and food. you can save a lot of money buying in bulk, but you need a car, ample storage, and cash up front to actually do this. I spend substantially less on paper towels and toilet paper than I did when I was limited to purchasing only what I could physically carry home with me.
of course, now that I can afford a car and a place to store months worth of paper towels, they are no longer a substantial part of my budget. go figure.
but since they charge the same prices to holders of credit (2% fee) and debit (0.05% fee), users of credit cards are de facto subsidized by cash/debit payers in the US
so as an individual it still may pay you to have one
> users of credit cards are de facto subsidized by cash/debit payers in the US
Yes, sadly. So you have to play the game in order not to lose, and playing the game means that the credit cards take their cut, which means everyone loses except the credit cards.
>It's so inappropriate that in the field that's actually trained for this, they're disallowed by compact, even with extensive evidence.
The field trained for this is not refraining from this because it's hard to get right, but because it undermines the privacy promise they give their clients! not an argument applicable to people who do not have that professional reputation to uphold.
Of course you should speculate about mental health of people when it's relevant to the topic - it's a factor heavily shaping many people's behaviour!
I remember the first time someone built a dedicated server for WC3 custom games (dota) that supported players reconnecting after a dc. it was mindblowing
roll to disbelieve. i think someone was pulling your leg
especially the bit with samsung devices, i've had the misfortune of setting up a samsung phone for a family member and the amount of crap on those is just unbelievable
how do you figure it's of little use? big difference between breaking in to loot a house you know is unarmed, versus one known to be armed and possibly keeping watch
obviously no one has issues with this scenario where both employers know. but the recent overemployed scheme where you get multiple jobs, do nothing for months while taking advantage of remote & people understanding that it takes time to get started, then look for a new job once you get fired from one - that's clearly abusive & wrong
the answer to that problem in this approach is to do multiple step upgrades, rather than skipping
serious frameworks/languages do not remove methods in the same version that introduces a replacement, that's the point of having a deprecation mechanism in the first place