Hyundai is awesome! Ferrari is ugly.

because of reasons?

It has way more character. The Ferrari basically looks fungible with every other EV.

often saying something has character is a euphemism for being ugly

It has more character because it’s lower, has sharper, sportier lines, and more refined shape. Also the frontend just has a pleasant retro-futuristic design (as does the rest of the car). This ferrari, besides having none of ferrari dna, is an amorphous blob, high off the ground, and all the lines screaming family crossover. Even if someone likes the design, which I don’t doubt there are people that do, it’s objectively a worse looking sports car than the Hyundai mentioned above. More subjectively speaking, the Luce’s frontend also just does not flow nicely together. It almost feels weird for the sake of being contrarian, to show how much it’s not tied to a „regular” car shape, due to being an EV. You can design a car from the ground up for the sake of being an EV and not have it look… like that

Ugly as hell, it doesn’t look like a Ferrari.

If I have an “array” and can do array[0] to get first item, but when I filter this array and array[0] throws an error, that’s super weird. What is the meaning of [] or what is an array even? The language forces me to understand how it is implemented under the hood. That’s exactly what the author says: leaky abstraction.

That also often shoots you as when json_encoding it only becomes an array when ordered "correctly" (numeric 0-based keys without gaps), otherwise an object. So to be safe you generally need to array_values after filtering. If in your testdata you only remove elements from the end you don't catch that before production data hits.

To get the first element there also is reset().

I love PHP though.

It's especially problematic when encoding an empty object to json. By default an empty array is serialized as [], to get {} you either need to pass a flag to force object serialization (which can mess up serializing actual arrays), or cast the array as an object. Neither of which are great when the object is deeply nested in the serialized object.

An “array” in PHP is an ordered map.

Isn't exactly their complaint? It's called an array, referred to consistently everywhere as an array, but it just ... isn't.

Apparently array is short for associated array:-)

In PHP the array index supports different key types and there's various optimizations that need to happen when the indexes are all numeric, mixed, or all strings or anything else. Technically it's called associative as soon as even one of the indexes isn't numeric. Internally though they are always numeric and anything non integer is hashed internally with DJB2 (Daniel J. Bernstein) hash algorithm and then stored. Using a non numeric index is slightly slower for that reason.

But even if you only have numeric keys, those keys don't need to be consecutive, or start at 0.

I don't think it is, tbh.

Perl's hashes are a complete mystery to me still, but at least it lets me know that it's not just a linear, uh, well, array.

> Perl's hashes are a complete mystery to me still

They're unordered mappings from strings to arbitrary values ("scalars" in Perl jargon). In this sense they're just like an object in JavaScript.

Where this gets a little weird is that Perl arrays and hashes are fundamental types distinct from scalars - you can't put a hash into a $variable without taking a reference to it first, for instance. But that's more a matter of Perl being picker about the value/reference distinction than a hash-specific thing.

PHP arrays are vectors, hash maps and doubly linked lists in one

My issue is a ton of people call all maps a hash regardless how it's implemented.

With good abstraction the implementation can be swapped without many noticing.

However PHP leaks different aspects hear and there, making this harder ...

What’s the worst can happpen?

I feel you. Similar experience on my side. I think it might've been like this before, but AI coding tools made it worse. Everybody thinks they can do it better - when there is a problem, the coding agent can just fix it. Why bother building relationships with senior devs or with anybody?

Looking deeper into it: these people don't understand the underlying foundations anymore. Just keep building fast, without building proper mental models (that would take time).

...and at the end of the 9 pages you'll be added to the list of employes to let go next time layoff happen.

Or there is some other explanation, eg. somebody messed with the request manually, or with the db.

Just enable versioning in S3?

Shipping garbage.

We have zero Honeybadger errors, performance is acceptable for all our routes in the application, and all of our key stakeholders are ecstatic about what we've built.

Is there some other metric I should be measuring our code by?

What about the actual users?

If this works for you, go ahead, I can't stop you.

But this is not software craftsmanship, or even software engineering. Don't act like it is.

Sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear—we write business software. The "key stakeholders" are the users. And they're ecstatic. They love what we're building.

I'd actually say it's both craftsmanship and engineering. :)

Store key to the item in a database. Then you can query it however you want.

I could imagine it though that S3 could offer something similar. We can already list the bucket items, why not add some of querying ability?