Post #1457371
2025-11-14 15:53 UTC
Replies (4)
-
@isaackuo@spacey.space 2025-11-14 15:55
@melindrea @mariyadelano Yep. But from my point of view, it makes sense. The thing is ... it's not just about the time and the tedium. It's about actually doing the task correctly. If I'm doing the same thing over and over for three hours, how likely is it I'm going to do it 100% correctly with no mistakes? I'm more confident of the script getting it done right.
-
@Photo55@mastodon.social 2025-11-14 16:15
@melindrea @isaackuo @mariyadelano There's an xkcd of course. A more measured response is option C: Given a 3 hour job likely to be recurrent spend an hour writing and testing a script to do half of it. Next time, spend an hour writing a script to do half the remainder.
-
@jackeric@beige.party 2025-11-14 17:29
@melindrea @isaackuo @mariyadelano but you learn so much while doing option B, and the next week you can apply that knowledge to something else... literally happened to me this week. I had to investigate as many as several dozen rows of a user activity audit log, the relevant parts of which are in an XML column. rather than spend several minutes looking at raw XML I learned how to parse the relevant bits into columns and rows in T-SQL and show the relevant data without surrounding boilerplate in a single view. then I used the same technique to analyse a bunch of data in a different table for a completely different purpose
-
@_rowdy@mastodon.au 2025-11-14 19:53
@melindrea @isaackuo @mariyadelano https://xkcd.com/1205/