I mean, REST-ful JSON APIs can be perfectly type-safe, if their developers actually take care to make them that way. And the self-descriptive nature of JSON is arguably a benefit in really large public-facing APIs. But yeah, gRPC forces a certain amount of type-safety and version control, and gRPC with protobuf is SUCH a pleasure to work with.
Give it time, though, it's definitely gaining traction.
Fullmetal Alchemist (both of them). The two main characters are basically the only teenagers, and only one of them looks it.
General wisdom is that if you can perform some kind of pre-validation action to prevent an exception from occurring, you should do that, rather than expect the exception and handle it, as part of "normal" flow control.
However.
Some types of exceptions, especially when related to itneracting with shared/external systems, cannot be conpletely avoided. Checking for the existence of a file is the textbook example of this. No matter how much you check of the existence of the file, it could technically be deleted or exclusively locked by another process before you get a chance to actually open it.
For all intents and purposes, that's not really likely to happen, so by all means, check for the file, to keep your code sensible, but make sure you have a general strategy for exception handling in place as well.
#4 for me.
Proper HTTP Status code for semantic identification. Duplicating that in the response body would be silly.
User-friendly "message" value for the lazy, who just wanna toss that up to the user. Also, ideally, this would be what a dev looks at in logs for troubelshooting.
Tightly-controlled unqiue identifier "code" for the error, allowing consumers to build their own contextual error handling or reporting on top of this system. Also, allows for more-detailed types of errors to be identified and given specific handling and recovery logic, beyond just the status code. Like, sure, there's probably not gonna be multiple sub-types of 403 error, but there may be a bunch of different useful sub-types for a 400 on a form submission.
Anyone else this there's actually nothing at all wrong with the "New" row of icons? Except for the triangle one, which is terrible in its "Original" version as well, as it indicates absolutely nothing about its app (I believe it's Google Drive, right?). All the rest are clearly distinguishable, and have relevance to what the app does.
Case in point: Every single thing Microsoft is doing in Windows these days.
Ooh! I know this one!
No.
Destroy or hide any music boxes in the room.
Makes about as much as Netflix's current attempts to muscle in on the gaming market, Epic-style.
Why I continue to be surprised by corporate decision-making is beyond me.
This right here. This article title. This is why you don't name your company "Nothing".
Even better quote, I love using this one.
"So, with AI writing code for us, all we need is an unambiguous way to define, what all our business requirements are for the software, what all the edge cases are, and how it should handle them."
"We in the industry call that 'code.'"