More on Web3 & Crypto

Ren & Heinrich
3 years ago
200 DeFi Projects were examined. Here is what I learned.
I analyze the top 200 DeFi crypto projects in this article.
This isn't a study. The findings benefit crypto investors.
Let’s go!
A set of data
I analyzed data from defillama.com. In my analysis, I used the top 200 DeFis by TVL in October 2022.
Total Locked Value
The chart below shows platform-specific locked value.
14 platforms had $1B+ TVL. 65 platforms have $100M-$1B TVL. The remaining 121 platforms had TVLs below $100 million, with the lowest being $23 million.
TVLs are distributed Pareto. Top 40% of DeFis account for 80% of TVLs.
Compliant Blockchains
Ethereum's blockchain leads DeFi. 96 of the examined projects offer services on Ethereum. Behind BSC, Polygon, and Avalanche.
Five platforms used 10+ blockchains. 36 between 2-10 159 used 1 blockchain.
Use Cases for DeFi
The chart below shows platform use cases. Each platform has decentralized exchanges, liquid staking, yield farming, and lending.
These use cases are DefiLlama's main platform features.
Which use case costs the most? Chart explains. Collateralized debt, liquid staking, dexes, and lending have high TVLs.
The DeFi Industry
I compared three high-TVL platforms (Maker DAO, Balancer, AAVE). The columns show monthly TVL and token price changes. The graph shows monthly Bitcoin price changes.
Each platform's market moves similarly.
Probably because most DeFi deposits are cryptocurrencies. Since individual currencies are highly correlated with Bitcoin, it's not surprising that they move in unison.
Takeaways
This analysis shows that the most common DeFi services (decentralized exchanges, liquid staking, yield farming, and lending) also have the highest average locked value.
Some projects run on one or two blockchains, while others use 15 or 20. Our analysis shows that a project's blockchain count has no correlation with its success.
It's hard to tell if certain use cases are rising. Bitcoin's price heavily affects the entire DeFi market.
TVL seems to be a good indicator of a DeFi platform's success and quality. Higher TVL platforms are cheaper. They're a better long-term investment because they gain or lose less value than DeFis with lower TVLs.

The Verge
3 years ago
Bored Ape Yacht Club creator raises $450 million at a $4 billion valuation.
Yuga Labs, owner of three of the biggest NFT brands on the market, announced today a $450 million funding round. The money will be used to create a media empire based on NFTs, starting with games and a metaverse project.
The team's Otherside metaverse project is an MMORPG meant to connect the larger NFT universe. They want to create “an interoperable world” that is “gamified” and “completely decentralized,” says Wylie Aronow, aka Gordon Goner, co-founder of Bored Ape Yacht Club. “We think the real Ready Player One experience will be player run.”
Just a few weeks ago, Yuga Labs announced the acquisition of CryptoPunks and Meebits from Larva Labs. The deal brought together three of the most valuable NFT collections, giving Yuga Labs more IP to work with when developing games and metaverses. Last week, ApeCoin was launched as a cryptocurrency that will be governed independently and used in Yuga Labs properties.
Otherside will be developed by “a few different game studios,” says Yuga Labs CEO Nicole Muniz. The company plans to create development tools that allow NFTs from other projects to work inside their world. “We're welcoming everyone into a walled garden.”
However, Yuga Labs believes that other companies are approaching metaverse projects incorrectly, allowing the startup to stand out. People won't bond spending time in a virtual space with nothing going on, says Yuga Labs co-founder Greg Solano, aka Gargamel. Instead, he says, people bond when forced to work together.
In order to avoid getting smacked, Solano advises making friends. “We don't think a Zoom chat and walking around saying ‘hi' creates a deep social experience.” Yuga Labs refused to provide a release date for Otherside. Later this year, a play-to-win game is planned.
The funding round was led by Andreessen Horowitz, a major investor in the Web3 space. It previously backed OpenSea and Coinbase. Animoca Brands, Coinbase, and MoonPay are among those who have invested. Andreessen Horowitz general partner Chris Lyons will join Yuga Labs' board. The Financial Times broke the story last month.
"META IS A DOMINANT DIGITAL EXPERIENCE PROVIDER IN A DYSTOPIAN FUTURE."
This emerging [Web3] ecosystem is important to me, as it is to companies like Meta,” Chris Dixon, head of Andreessen Horowitz's crypto arm, tells The Verge. “In a dystopian future, Meta is the dominant digital experience provider, and it controls all the money and power.” (Andreessen Horowitz co-founder Marc Andreessen sits on Meta's board and invested early in Facebook.)
Yuga Labs has been profitable so far. According to a leaked pitch deck, the company made $137 million last year, primarily from its NFT brands, with a 95% profit margin. (Yuga Labs declined to comment on deck figures.)
But the company has built little so far. According to OpenSea data, it has only released one game for a limited time. That means Yuga Labs gets hundreds of millions of dollars to build a gaming company from scratch, based on a hugely lucrative art project.
Investors fund Yuga Labs based on its success. That's what they did, says Dixon, “they created a culture phenomenon”. But ultimately, the company is betting on the same thing that so many others are: that a metaverse project will be the next big thing. Now they must construct it.

Protos
3 years ago
StableGains lost $42M in Anchor Protocol.
StableGains lost millions of dollars in customer funds in Anchor Protocol without telling its users. The Anchor Protocol offered depositors 19-20% APY before its parent ecosystem, Terra LUNA, lost tens of billions of dollars in market capitalization as LUNA fell below $0.01 and its stablecoin (UST) collapsed.
A Terra Research Forum member raised the alarm. StableGains changed its homepage and Terms and Conditions to reflect how it mitigates risk, a tacit admission that it should have done so from the start.
StableGains raised $600,000 in YCombinator's W22 batch. Moonfire, Broom Ventures, and Goodwater Capital invested $3 million more.
StableGains' 15% yield product attracted $42 million in deposits. StableGains kept most of its deposits in Anchor's UST pool earning 19-20% APY, kept one-quarter of the interest as a management fee, and then gave customers their promised 15% APY. It lost almost all customer funds when UST melted down. It changed withdrawal times, hurting customers.
- StableGains said de-pegging was unlikely. According to its website, 1 UST can be bought and sold for $1 of LUNA. LUNA became worthless, and Terra shut down its blockchain.
- It promised to diversify assets across several stablecoins to reduce the risk of one losing its $1 peg, but instead kept almost all of them in one basket.
- StableGains promised withdrawals in three business days, even if a stablecoin needed time to regain its peg. StableGains uses Coinbase for deposits and withdrawals, and customers receive the exact amount of USDC requested.
StableGains scrubs its website squeaky clean
StableGains later edited its website to say it only uses the "most trusted and tested stablecoins" and extended withdrawal times from three days to indefinite time "in extreme cases."
Previously, USDC, TerraUST (UST), and Dai were used (DAI). StableGains changed UST-related website content after the meltdown. It also removed most references to DAI.
Customers noticed a new clause in the Terms and Conditions denying StableGains liability for withdrawal losses. This new clause would have required customers to agree not to sue before withdrawing funds, avoiding a class-action lawsuit.
Customers must sign a waiver to receive a refund.
Erickson Kramer & Osborne law firm has asked StableGains to preserve all internal documents on customer accounts, marketing, and TerraUSD communications. The firm has not yet filed a lawsuit.
Thousands of StableGains customers lost an estimated $42 million.
Celsius Network customers also affected
CEL used Terra LUNA's Anchor Protocol. Celsius users lost money in the crypto market crash and UST meltdown. Many held CEL and LUNA as yielding deposits.
CEO Alex Mashinsky accused "unknown malefactors" of targeting Celsius Network without evidence. Celsius has not publicly investigated this claim as of this article's publication.
CEL fell before UST de-pegged. On June 2, 2021, it reached $8.01. May 19's close: $0.82.
When some Celsius Network users threatened to leave over token losses, Mashinsky replied, "Leave if you don't think I'm sincere and working harder than you, seven days a week."
Celsius Network withdrew $500 million from Anchor Protocol, but smaller holders had trouble.
Read original article here
You might also like

Sammy Abdullah
3 years ago
How to properly price SaaS
Price Intelligently put out amazing content on pricing your SaaS product. This blog's link to the whole report is worth reading. Our key takeaways are below.
Don't base prices on the competition. Competitor-based pricing has clear drawbacks. Their pricing approach is yours. Your company offers customers something unique. Otherwise, you wouldn't create it. This strategy is static, therefore you can't add value by raising prices without outpricing competitors. Look, but don't touch is the competitor-based moral. You want to know your competitors' prices so you're in the same ballpark, but they shouldn't guide your selections. Competitor-based pricing also drives down prices.
Value-based pricing wins. This is customer-based pricing. Value-based pricing looks outward, not inward or laterally at competitors. Your clients are the best source of pricing information. By valuing customer comments, you're focusing on buyers. They'll decide if your pricing and packaging are right. In addition to asking consumers about cost savings or revenue increases, look at data like number of users, usage per user, etc.
Value-based pricing increases prices. As you learn more about the client and your worth, you'll know when and how much to boost rates. Every 6 months, examine pricing.
Cloning top customers. You clone your consumers by learning as much as you can about them and then reaching out to comparable people or organizations. You can't accomplish this without knowing your customers. Segmenting and reproducing them requires as much detail as feasible. Offer pricing plans and feature packages for 4 personas. The top plan should state Contact Us. Your highest-value customers want more advice and support.
Question your 4 personas. What's the one item you can't live without? Which integrations matter most? Do you do analytics? Is support important or does your company self-solve? What's too cheap? What's too expensive?
Not everyone likes per-user pricing. SaaS organizations often default to per-user analytics. About 80% of companies utilizing per-user pricing should use an alternative value metric because their goods don't give more value with more users, so charging for them doesn't make sense.
At least 3:1 LTV/CAC. Break even on the customer within 2 years, and LTV to CAC is greater than 3:1. Because customer acquisition costs are paid upfront but SaaS revenues accrue over time, SaaS companies face an early financial shortfall while paying back the CAC.
ROI should be >20:1. Indeed. Ensure the customer's ROI is 20x the product's cost. Microsoft Office costs $80 a year, but consumers would pay much more to maintain it.
A/B Testing. A/B testing is guessing. When your pricing page varies based on assumptions, you'll upset customers. You don't have enough customers anyway. A/B testing optimizes landing pages, design decisions, and other site features when you know the problem but not pricing.
Don't discount. It cheapens the product, makes it permanent, and increases churn. By discounting, you're ruining your pricing analysis.

Samer Buna
2 years ago
The Errors I Committed As a Novice Programmer
Learn to identify them, make habits to avoid them
First, a clarification. This article is aimed to make new programmers aware of their mistakes, train them to detect them, and remind them to prevent them.
I learned from all these blunders. I'm glad I have coding habits to avoid them. Do too.
These mistakes are not ordered.
1) Writing code haphazardly
Writing good content is hard. It takes planning and investigation. Quality programs don't differ.
Think. Research. Plan. Write. Validate. Modify. Unfortunately, no good acronym exists. Create a habit of doing the proper quantity of these activities.
As a newbie programmer, my biggest error was writing code without thinking or researching. This works for small stand-alone apps but hurts larger ones.
Like saying anything you might regret, you should think before coding something you could regret. Coding expresses your thoughts.
When angry, count to 10 before you speak. If very angry, a hundred. — Thomas Jefferson.
My quote:
When reviewing code, count to 10 before you refactor a line. If the code does not have tests, a hundred. — Samer Buna
Programming is primarily about reviewing prior code, investigating what is needed and how it fits into the current system, and developing small, testable features. Only 10% of the process involves writing code.
Programming is not writing code. Programming need nurturing.
2) Making excessive plans prior to writing code
Yes. Planning before writing code is good, but too much of it is bad. Water poisons.
Avoid perfect plans. Programming does not have that. Find a good starting plan. Your plan will change, but it helped you structure your code for clarity. Overplanning wastes time.
Only planning small features. All-feature planning should be illegal! The Waterfall Approach is a step-by-step system. That strategy requires extensive planning. This is not planning. Most software projects fail with waterfall. Implementing anything sophisticated requires agile changes to reality.
Programming requires responsiveness. You'll add waterfall plan-unthinkable features. You will eliminate functionality for reasons you never considered in a waterfall plan. Fix bugs and adjust. Be agile.
Plan your future features, though. Do it cautiously since too little or too much planning can affect code quality, which you must risk.
3) Underestimating the Value of Good Code
Readability should be your code's exclusive goal. Unintelligible code stinks. Non-recyclable.
Never undervalue code quality. Coding communicates implementations. Coders must explicitly communicate solution implementations.
Programming quote I like:
Always code as if the guy who ends up maintaining your code will be a violent psychopath who knows where you live. — John Woods
John, great advice!
Small things matter. If your indentation and capitalization are inconsistent, you should lose your coding license.
Long queues are also simple. Readability decreases after 80 characters. To highlight an if-statement block, you might put a long condition on the same line. No. Just never exceed 80 characters.
Linting and formatting tools fix many basic issues like this. ESLint and Prettier work great together in JavaScript. Use them.
Code quality errors:
Multiple lines in a function or file. Break long code into manageable bits. My rule of thumb is that any function with more than 10 lines is excessively long.
Double-negatives. Don't.
Using double negatives is just very not not wrong
Short, generic, or type-based variable names. Name variables clearly.
There are only two hard things in Computer Science: cache invalidation and naming things. — Phil Karlton
Hard-coding primitive strings and numbers without descriptions. If your logic relies on a constant primitive string or numeric value, identify it.
Avoiding simple difficulties with sloppy shortcuts and workarounds. Avoid evasion. Take stock.
Considering lengthier code better. Shorter code is usually preferable. Only write lengthier versions if they improve code readability. For instance, don't utilize clever one-liners and nested ternary statements just to make the code shorter. In any application, removing unneeded code is better.
Measuring programming progress by lines of code is like measuring aircraft building progress by weight. — Bill Gates
Excessive conditional logic. Conditional logic is unnecessary for most tasks. Choose based on readability. Measure performance before optimizing. Avoid Yoda conditions and conditional assignments.
4) Selecting the First Approach
When I started programming, I would solve an issue and move on. I would apply my initial solution without considering its intricacies and probable shortcomings.
After questioning all the solutions, the best ones usually emerge. If you can't think of several answers, you don't grasp the problem.
Programmers do not solve problems. Find the easiest solution. The solution must work well and be easy to read, comprehend, and maintain.
There are two ways of constructing a software design. One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies. — C.A.R. Hoare
5) Not Giving Up
I generally stick with the original solution even though it may not be the best. The not-quitting mentality may explain this. This mindset is helpful for most things, but not programming. Program writers should fail early and often.
If you doubt a solution, toss it and rethink the situation. No matter how much you put in that solution. GIT lets you branch off and try various solutions. Use it.
Do not be attached to code because of how much effort you put into it. Bad code needs to be discarded.
6) Avoiding Google
I've wasted time solving problems when I should have researched them first.
Unless you're employing cutting-edge technology, someone else has probably solved your problem. Google It First.
Googling may discover that what you think is an issue isn't and that you should embrace it. Do not presume you know everything needed to choose a solution. Google surprises.
But Google carefully. Newbies also copy code without knowing it. Use only code you understand, even if it solves your problem.
Never assume you know how to code creatively.
The most dangerous thought that you can have as a creative person is to think that you know what you’re doing. — Bret Victor
7) Failing to Use Encapsulation
Not about object-oriented paradigm. Encapsulation is always useful. Unencapsulated systems are difficult to maintain.
An application should only handle a feature once. One object handles that. The application's other objects should only see what's essential. Reducing application dependencies is not about secrecy. Following these guidelines lets you safely update class, object, and function internals without breaking things.
Classify logic and state concepts. Class means blueprint template. Class or Function objects are possible. It could be a Module or Package.
Self-contained tasks need methods in a logic class. Methods should accomplish one thing well. Similar classes should share method names.
As a rookie programmer, I didn't always establish a new class for a conceptual unit or recognize self-contained units. Newbie code has a Util class full of unrelated code. Another symptom of novice code is when a small change cascades and requires numerous other adjustments.
Think before adding a method or new responsibilities to a method. Time's needed. Avoid skipping or refactoring. Start right.
High Cohesion and Low Coupling involves grouping relevant code in a class and reducing class dependencies.
8) Arranging for Uncertainty
Thinking beyond your solution is appealing. Every line of code will bring up what-ifs. This is excellent for edge cases but not for foreseeable needs.
Your what-ifs must fall into one of these two categories. Write only code you need today. Avoid future planning.
Writing a feature for future use is improper. No.
Write only the code you need today for your solution. Handle edge-cases, but don't introduce edge-features.
Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell. — Edward Abbey
9) Making the incorrect data structure choices
Beginner programmers often overemphasize algorithms when preparing for interviews. Good algorithms should be identified and used when needed, but memorizing them won't make you a programming genius.
However, learning your language's data structures' strengths and shortcomings will make you a better developer.
The improper data structure shouts "newbie coding" here.
Let me give you a few instances of data structures without teaching you:
Managing records with arrays instead of maps (objects).
Most data structure mistakes include using lists instead of maps to manage records. Use a map to organize a list of records.
This list of records has an identifier to look up each entry. Lists for scalar values are OK and frequently superior, especially if the focus is pushing values to the list.
Arrays and objects are the most common JavaScript list and map structures, respectively (there is also a map structure in modern JavaScript).
Lists over maps for record management often fail. I recommend always using this point, even though it only applies to huge collections. This is crucial because maps are faster than lists in looking up records by identifier.
Stackless
Simple recursive functions are often tempting when writing recursive programming. In single-threaded settings, optimizing recursive code is difficult.
Recursive function returns determine code optimization. Optimizing a recursive function that returns two or more calls to itself is harder than optimizing a single call.
Beginners overlook the alternative to recursive functions. Use Stack. Push function calls to a stack and start popping them out to traverse them back.
10) Worsening the current code
Imagine this:
Add an item to that room. You might want to store that object anywhere as it's a mess. You can finish in seconds.
Not with messy code. Do not worsen! Keep the code cleaner than when you started.
Clean the room above to place the new object. If the item is clothing, clear a route to the closet. That's proper execution.
The following bad habits frequently make code worse:
code duplication You are merely duplicating code and creating more chaos if you copy/paste a code block and then alter just the line after that. This would be equivalent to adding another chair with a lower base rather than purchasing a new chair with a height-adjustable seat in the context of the aforementioned dirty room example. Always keep abstraction in mind, and use it when appropriate.
utilizing configuration files not at all. A configuration file should contain the value you need to utilize if it may differ in certain circumstances or at different times. A configuration file should contain a value if you need to use it across numerous lines of code. Every time you add a new value to the code, simply ask yourself: "Does this value belong in a configuration file?" The most likely response is "yes."
using temporary variables and pointless conditional statements. Every if-statement represents a logic branch that should at the very least be tested twice. When avoiding conditionals doesn't compromise readability, it should be done. The main issue with this is that branch logic is being used to extend an existing function rather than creating a new function. Are you altering the code at the appropriate level, or should you go think about the issue at a higher level every time you feel you need an if-statement or a new function variable?
This code illustrates superfluous if-statements:
function isOdd(number) {
if (number % 2 === 1) {
return true;
} else {
return false;
}
}Can you spot the biggest issue with the isOdd function above?
Unnecessary if-statement. Similar code:
function isOdd(number) {
return (number % 2 === 1);
};11) Making remarks on things that are obvious
I've learnt to avoid comments. Most code comments can be renamed.
instead of:
// This function sums only odd numbers in an array
const sum = (val) => {
return val.reduce((a, b) => {
if (b % 2 === 1) { // If the current number is odd
a+=b; // Add current number to accumulator
}
return a; // The accumulator
}, 0);
};Commentless code looks like this:
const sumOddValues = (array) => {
return array.reduce((accumulator, currentNumber) => {
if (isOdd(currentNumber)) {
return accumulator + currentNumber;
}
return accumulator;
}, 0);
};Better function and argument names eliminate most comments. Remember that before commenting.
Sometimes you have to use comments to clarify the code. This is when your comments should answer WHY this code rather than WHAT it does.
Do not write a WHAT remark to clarify the code. Here are some unnecessary comments that clutter code:
// create a variable and initialize it to 0
let sum = 0;
// Loop over array
array.forEach(
// For each number in the array
(number) => {
// Add the current number to the sum variable
sum += number;
}
);Avoid that programmer. Reject that code. Remove such comments if necessary. Most importantly, teach programmers how awful these remarks are. Tell programmers who publish remarks like this that they may lose their jobs. That terrible.
12) Skipping tests
I'll simplify. If you develop code without tests because you think you're an excellent programmer, you're a rookie.
If you're not writing tests in code, you're probably testing manually. Every few lines of code in a web application will be refreshed and interacted with. Also. Manual code testing is fine. To learn how to automatically test your code, manually test it. After testing your application, return to your code editor and write code to automatically perform the same interaction the next time you add code.
Human. After each code update, you will forget to test all successful validations. Automate it!
Before writing code to fulfill validations, guess or design them. TDD is real. It improves your feature design thinking.
If you can use TDD, even partially, do so.
13) Making the assumption that if something is working, it must be right.
See this sumOddValues function. Is it flawed?
const sumOddValues = (array) => {
return array.reduce((accumulator, currentNumber) => {
if (currentNumber % 2 === 1) {
return accumulator + currentNumber;
}
return accumulator;
});
};
console.assert(
sumOddValues([1, 2, 3, 4, 5]) === 9
);Verified. Good life. Correct?
Code above is incomplete. It handles some scenarios correctly, including the assumption used, but it has many other issues. I'll list some:
#1: No empty input handling. What happens when the function is called without arguments? That results in an error revealing the function's implementation:
TypeError: Cannot read property 'reduce' of undefined.Two main factors indicate faulty code.
Your function's users shouldn't come across implementation-related information.
The user cannot benefit from the error. Simply said, they were unable to use your function. They would be aware that they misused the function if the error was more obvious about the usage issue. You might decide to make the function throw a custom exception, for instance:
TypeError: Cannot execute function for empty list.Instead of returning an error, your method should disregard empty input and return a sum of 0. This case requires action.
Problem #2: No input validation. What happens if the function is invoked with a text, integer, or object instead of an array?
The function now throws:
sumOddValues(42);
TypeError: array.reduce is not a functionUnfortunately, array. cut's a function!
The function labels anything you call it with (42 in the example above) as array because we named the argument array. The error says 42.reduce is not a function.
See how that error confuses? An mistake like:
TypeError: 42 is not an array, dude.Edge-cases are #1 and #2. These edge-cases are typical, but you should also consider less obvious ones. Negative numbers—what happens?
sumOddValues([1, 2, 3, 4, 5, -13]) // => still 9-13's unusual. Is this the desired function behavior? Error? Should it sum negative numbers? Should it keep ignoring negative numbers? You may notice the function should have been titled sumPositiveOddNumbers.
This decision is simple. The more essential point is that if you don't write a test case to document your decision, future function maintainers won't know if you ignored negative values intentionally or accidentally.
It’s not a bug. It’s a feature. — Someone who forgot a test case
#3: Valid cases are not tested. Forget edge-cases, this function mishandles a straightforward case:
sumOddValues([2, 1, 3, 4, 5]) // => 11The 2 above was wrongly included in sum.
The solution is simple: reduce accepts a second input to initialize the accumulator. Reduce will use the first value in the collection as the accumulator if that argument is not provided, like in the code above. The sum included the test case's first even value.
This test case should have been included in the tests along with many others, such as all-even numbers, a list with 0 in it, and an empty list.
Newbie code also has rudimentary tests that disregard edge-cases.
14) Adhering to Current Law
Unless you're a lone supercoder, you'll encounter stupid code. Beginners don't identify it and assume it's decent code because it works and has been in the codebase for a while.
Worse, if the terrible code uses bad practices, the newbie may be enticed to use them elsewhere in the codebase since they learnt them from good code.
A unique condition may have pushed the developer to write faulty code. This is a nice spot for a thorough note that informs newbies about that condition and why the code is written that way.
Beginners should presume that undocumented code they don't understand is bad. Ask. Enquire. Blame it!
If the code's author is dead or can't remember it, research and understand it. Only after understanding the code can you judge its quality. Before that, presume nothing.
15) Being fixated on best practices
Best practices damage. It suggests no further research. Best practice ever. No doubts!
No best practices. Today's programming language may have good practices.
Programming best practices are now considered bad practices.
Time will reveal better methods. Focus on your strengths, not best practices.
Do not do anything because you read a quote, saw someone else do it, or heard it is a recommended practice. This contains all my article advice! Ask questions, challenge theories, know your options, and make informed decisions.
16) Being preoccupied with performance
Premature optimization is the root of all evil (or at least most of it) in programming — Donald Knuth (1974)
I think Donald Knuth's advice is still relevant today, even though programming has changed.
Do not optimize code if you cannot measure the suspected performance problem.
Optimizing before code execution is likely premature. You may possibly be wasting time optimizing.
There are obvious optimizations to consider when writing new code. You must not flood the event loop or block the call stack in Node.js. Remember this early optimization. Will this code block the call stack?
Avoid non-obvious code optimization without measurements. If done, your performance boost may cause new issues.
Stop optimizing unmeasured performance issues.
17) Missing the End-User Experience as a Goal
How can an app add a feature easily? Look at it from your perspective or in the existing User Interface. Right? Add it to the form if the feature captures user input. Add it to your nested menu of links if it adds a link to a page.
Avoid that developer. Be a professional who empathizes with customers. They imagine this feature's consumers' needs and behavior. They focus on making the feature easy to find and use, not just adding it to the software.
18) Choosing the incorrect tool for the task
Every programmer has their preferred tools. Most tools are good for one thing and bad for others.
The worst tool for screwing in a screw is a hammer. Do not use your favorite hammer on a screw. Don't use Amazon's most popular hammer on a screw.
A true beginner relies on tool popularity rather than problem fit.
You may not know the best tools for a project. You may know the best tool. However, it wouldn't rank high. You must learn your tools and be open to new ones.
Some coders shun new tools. They like their tools and don't want to learn new ones. I can relate, but it's wrong.
You can build a house slowly with basic tools or rapidly with superior tools. You must learn and use new tools.
19) Failing to recognize that data issues are caused by code issues
Programs commonly manage data. The software will add, delete, and change records.
Even the simplest programming errors can make data unpredictable. Especially if the same defective application validates all data.
Code-data relationships may be confusing for beginners. They may employ broken code in production since feature X is not critical. Buggy coding may cause hidden data integrity issues.
Worse, deploying code that corrected flaws without fixing minor data problems caused by these defects will only collect more data problems that take the situation into the unrecoverable-level category.
How do you avoid these issues? Simply employ numerous data integrity validation levels. Use several interfaces. Front-end, back-end, network, and database validations. If not, apply database constraints.
Use all database constraints when adding columns and tables:
If a column has a NOT NULL constraint, null values will be rejected for that column. If your application expects that field has a value, your database should designate its source as not null.
If a column has a UNIQUE constraint, the entire table cannot include duplicate values for that column. This is ideal for a username or email field on a Users table, for instance.
For the data to be accepted, a CHECK constraint, or custom expression, must evaluate to true. For instance, you can apply a check constraint to ensure that the values of a normal % column must fall within the range of 0 and 100.
With a PRIMARY KEY constraint, the values of the columns must be both distinct and not null. This one is presumably what you're utilizing. To distinguish the records in each table, the database needs have a primary key.
A FOREIGN KEY constraint requires that the values in one database column, typically a primary key, match those in another table column.
Transaction apathy is another data integrity issue for newbies. If numerous actions affect the same data source and depend on each other, they must be wrapped in a transaction that can be rolled back if one fails.
20) Reinventing the Wheel
Tricky. Some programming wheels need reinvention. Programming is undefined. New requirements and changes happen faster than any team can handle.
Instead of modifying the wheel we all adore, maybe we should rethink it if you need a wheel that spins at varied speeds depending on the time of day. If you don't require a non-standard wheel, don't reinvent it. Use the darn wheel.
Wheel brands can be hard to choose from. Research and test before buying! Most software wheels are free and transparent. Internal design quality lets you evaluate coding wheels. Try open-source wheels. Debug and fix open-source software simply. They're easily replaceable. In-house support is also easy.
If you need a wheel, don't buy a new automobile and put your maintained car on top. Do not include a library to use a few functions. Lodash in JavaScript is the finest example. Import shuffle to shuffle an array. Don't import lodash.
21) Adopting the incorrect perspective on code reviews
Beginners often see code reviews as criticism. Dislike them. Not appreciated. Even fear them.
Incorrect. If so, modify your mindset immediately. Learn from every code review. Salute them. Observe. Most crucial, thank reviewers who teach you.
Always learning code. Accept it. Most code reviews teach something new. Use these for learning.
You may need to correct the reviewer. If your code didn't make that evident, it may need to be changed. If you must teach your reviewer, remember that teaching is one of the most enjoyable things a programmer can do.
22) Not Using Source Control
Newbies often underestimate Git's capabilities.
Source control is more than sharing your modifications. It's much bigger. Clear history is source control. The history of coding will assist address complex problems. Commit messages matter. They are another way to communicate your implementations, and utilizing them with modest commits helps future maintainers understand how the code got where it is.
Commit early and often with present-tense verbs. Summarize your messages but be detailed. If you need more than a few lines, your commit is too long. Rebase!
Avoid needless commit messages. Commit summaries should not list new, changed, or deleted files. Git commands can display that list from the commit object. The summary message would be noise. I think a big commit has many summaries per file altered.
Source control involves discoverability. You can discover the commit that introduced a function and see its context if you doubt its need or design. Commits can even pinpoint which code caused a bug. Git has a binary search within commits (bisect) to find the bug-causing commit.
Source control can be used before commits to great effect. Staging changes, patching selectively, resetting, stashing, editing, applying, diffing, reversing, and others enrich your coding flow. Know, use, and enjoy them.
I consider a Git rookie someone who knows less functionalities.
23) Excessive Use of Shared State
Again, this is not about functional programming vs. other paradigms. That's another article.
Shared state is problematic and should be avoided if feasible. If not, use shared state as little as possible.
As a new programmer, I didn't know that all variables represent shared states. All variables in the same scope can change its data. Global scope reduces shared state span. Keep new states in limited scopes and avoid upward leakage.
When numerous resources modify common state in the same event loop tick, the situation becomes severe (in event-loop-based environments). Races happen.
This shared state race condition problem may encourage a rookie to utilize a timer, especially if they have a data lock issue. Red flag. No. Never accept it.
24) Adopting the Wrong Mentality Toward Errors
Errors are good. Progress. They indicate a simple way to improve.
Expert programmers enjoy errors. Newbies detest them.
If these lovely red error warnings irritate you, modify your mindset. Consider them helpers. Handle them. Use them to advance.
Some errors need exceptions. Plan for user-defined exceptions. Ignore some mistakes. Crash and exit the app.
25) Ignoring rest periods
Humans require mental breaks. Take breaks. In the zone, you'll forget breaks. Another symptom of beginners. No compromises. Make breaks mandatory in your process. Take frequent pauses. Take a little walk to plan your next move. Reread the code.
This has been a long post. You deserve a break.
Matthew Royse
3 years ago
Ten words and phrases to avoid in presentations
Don't say this in public!
Want to wow your audience? Want to deliver a successful presentation? Do you want practical takeaways from your presentation?
Then avoid these phrases.
Public speaking is difficult. People fear public speaking, according to research.
"Public speaking is people's biggest fear, according to studies. Number two is death. "Sounds right?" — Comedian Jerry Seinfeld
Yes, public speaking is scary. These words and phrases will make your presentation harder.
Using unnecessary words can weaken your message.
You may have prepared well for your presentation and feel confident. During your presentation, you may freeze up. You may blank or forget.
Effective delivery is even more important than skillful public speaking.
Here are 10 presentation pitfalls.
1. I or Me
Presentations are about the audience, not you. Replace "I or me" with "you, we, or us." Focus on your audience. Reward them with expertise and intriguing views about your issue.
Serve your audience actionable items during your presentation, and you'll do well. Your audience will have a harder time listening and engaging if you're self-centered.
2. Sorry if/for
Your presentation is fine. These phrases make you sound insecure and unprepared. Don't pressure the audience to tell you not to apologize. Your audience should focus on your presentation and essential messages.
3. Excuse the Eye Chart, or This slide's busy
Why add this slide if you're utilizing these phrases? If you don't like this slide, change it before presenting. After the presentation, extra data can be provided.
Don't apologize for unclear slides. Hide or delete a broken PowerPoint slide. If so, divide your message into multiple slides or remove the "business" slide.
4. Sorry I'm Nervous
Some think expressing yourself will win over the audience. Nerves are horrible. Even public speakers are nervous.
Nerves aren't noticeable. What's the point? Let the audience judge your nervousness. Please don't make this obvious.
5. I'm not a speaker or I've never done this before.
These phrases destroy credibility. People won't listen and will check their phones or computers.
Why present if you use these phrases?
Good speakers aren't necessarily public speakers. Be confident in what you say. When you're confident, many people will like your presentation.
6. Our Key Differentiators Are
Overused term. It's widely utilized. This seems "salesy," and your "important differentiators" are probably like a competitor's.
This statement has been diluted; say, "what makes us different is..."
7. Next Slide
Many slides or stories? Your presentation needs transitions. They help your viewers understand your argument.
You didn't transition well when you said "next slide." Think about organic transitions.
8. I Didn’t Have Enough Time, or I’m Running Out of Time
The phrase "I didn't have enough time" implies that you didn't care about your presentation. This shows the viewers you rushed and didn't care.
Saying "I'm out of time" shows poor time management. It means you didn't rehearse enough and plan your time well.
9. I've been asked to speak on
This phrase is used to emphasize your importance. This phrase conveys conceit.
When you say this sentence, you tell others you're intelligent, skilled, and appealing. Don't utilize this term; focus on your topic.
10. Moving On, or All I Have
These phrases don't consider your transitions or presentation's end. People recall a presentation's beginning and end.
How you end your discussion affects how people remember it. You must end your presentation strongly and use natural transitions.
Conclusion
10 phrases to avoid in a presentation. I or me, sorry if or sorry for, pardon the Eye Chart or this busy slide, forgive me if I appear worried, or I'm really nervous, and I'm not good at public speaking, I'm not a speaker, or I've never done this before.
Please don't use these phrases: next slide, I didn't have enough time, I've been asked to speak about, or that's all I have.
We shouldn't make public speaking more difficult than it is. We shouldn't exacerbate a difficult issue. Better public speakers avoid these words and phrases.
“Remember not only to say the right thing in the right place, but far more difficult still, to leave unsaid the wrong thing at the tempting moment.” — Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father
This is a summary. See the original post here.
