Is version control a meme?

>muh job security through obscurity
This is why you'll never be promoted from code monkey, rahesh.

At least he sees the light on (((unit tests))).

Unit tests are fine.
Test driven development and muh 100% code coverage are not.

Unit-testing can save you a shitload of hassle, even on personal projects, so long as you're wise about what's worthwhile to test.

As says, you'd be retarted to try and get 100% code coverage since you'll hit the point of diminishing returns long before that. What's important is that you unittest the things that are most likely to fuck up or break when you're developing the project to make debugging much simpler, not some inconsequential getters/setters

no

version control is a significant part of any long-term project and these need full controllers must be enhanced within the systemic.

git bisect for finding and a bug was introduced

Explains how buggy and slow DF is then.

What I don't understand is why there isn't a local version control built into stuff like Visual Studio or your generic IDE.

Having to sign up to a 3rd party botnet while coding in the hopes that they don't delete/ban your code if you so happens to trigger liberals is stupid as fuck.

My work project has like 96% coverage because I write reproducible tests instead of testing by using which is super annoying. And every time there's a bug found, I add a test case to make sure it doesn't happen again. You don't need to aim for 100%, you'll naturally get very close to it anyway.

No. Being proficient at using VC makes you more efficient.
Also, having a good understanding of it gives you more confidence in making large refactors, since rolling back changes becomes trivial.

>version control
>tests
>CD/CI
>next new shiny thing
yet your final product is still low quality crap

Attached: 1533516417070.jpg (320x371, 62K)

How do you put your shit on github?

>Also, having a good understanding of it gives you more confidence in making large refactors, since rolling back changes becomes trivial.
This is the main reason I use it for personal projects. I suppose you could argue that you could just make a copy, but VC already does that and also gives you a good way to track invidual changes to your project. Also this: as long as you keep your commits small and frequent.

>What I don't understand is why there isn't a local version control built into stuff like Visual Studio or your generic IDE.
You can use Git locally.

How do I get better at git?

cd into folder
git init
git remote add origin [email protected]:User/UserRepo.git
git add .
git commit -m "intial commit"
git push origin master

>Having to sign up to a 3rd party botnet while coding in the hopes that they don't delete/ban your code if you so happens to trigger liberals is stupid as fuck.
Why are you acting like you know what you're talking about Jow Forumstard? Git is local and you can even self host it, that's the whole point.

Two things you should understand is that code is disposable, and the more you rewrite the same functionality, the better the code will look.

>not making a script to do all the initial steps for you and calling it git-init wjere it has your credentials and uses the folder name as project name

> not just using GitHub Desktop

That's a pretty cool setup user! Share script plox?

nah i like easy branches, history, and automerge

>tfw coworkers make utterly giant commits that mix lots of different changes and often don't even build

This is next level autism. Let's go back to writing code on punch cards while we're on it.

>not making a public repo of a init script with your credentials in cleartext