> There’s an old adage in software engineering — “never write your own database”. So why did the OneNote team go ahead and write one as part of upgrading OneNote’s local cache implementation?
All those rules work for most but not all projects. It's the same as saying "You shall allways obey traffic rules". Maybe I should, but sometimes I may not want to brake on yellow light when I have clearly impatient driver tailgating me.
As we gain experience we learn the world is not black and white. Akin's law #8 says:
"In nature, the optimum is almost always in the middle somewhere. Distrust assertions that the optimum is at an extreme point."
You are free to violate any of those on the right in the interest of the ones to the left.
Not correct. Example, a stranger: "are you alone a home?" or "what is the keycode for the door" etc.
“I am not going to answer that” is a true, correct, and appropriate response to both of those questions.
But besides, most kids learned to lie pretty well, to circumvent various restrictions - and learning from the adults who tell them no to lie, but do it by themselves.
I am in favor of leading by example. If I am lying, how can I possible demand it from kids, to do otherwise? When they find out, they loose confidence in me. But when I tell them to only lie in extreme situations to "enemys" and act accordingly, they are much more likely to become truthful by default as well.
Some simplifications are useful in some contexts, but the world is an unimaginably complex thing and trying to dumb it down can only take you so far.
Wait so does this truth exist, or is it also a lie on some level?
It's not truth at all. Just an observation. It happens to fit with my perceptions. That's it.
You can artificially define truth by tying it to a particular frame of reference, but that's not "the truth", as that frame of reference is not 100% transferable to others anyway. The idea of umwelt, as I understand it, seems to work here. Still, it's just an observation, an impression.
I'm not really saying anything new here. Descartes was saying something similar quite a long time ago. Then again, he could have meant something else entirely and there's no way for me to know which is it. I just assume my understanding is close enough to the intended meaning. I may well be completely wrong on this.
Basically, there's nothing you can be really sure about, including the fact that you can't be really sure about anything. There are only things that appear to work for you and, possibly, others. You can use them. Just don't believe them unquestioningly.
Me: It is correct to teach kids that they should tell the truth in every scenario, even if as adults we don't.
You: Not correct. [...]
Exceptions exist in every situation for every single thing you say or do or think. Pointing out exceptions doesn't get you anywhere. Every adult knows this. A childs mind doesn't, and depending on the maturity level, cannot comprehend them. There is an established successful method of instruction of starting with simple rules/laws/examples, and then layering complexity later on. All of our systems of education are based on this. Nobody tells a child to also look up for a possible meteor or a skyscraper collapsing, or a vulture about to attack them before crossing the street. We just teach them to look both ways. Programmers are taught to take for granted that a bit in memory retains its value once set. When you're learning how to program you don't need to account for CPU bugs or cosmic radiation.
Me: It is correct to teach kids that they should tell the truth in every scenario, even if as adults we don't." teach children that truth is optional."
Optional means maybe. I said default is truth. And when I say every, I mean every. But there are exceptions, in the case of enemys. So if they lie to someone, it means this one is a (temporary) enemy. Which is a serious implication. They do understand that usually.
They also understand the concept of friend and enemy very early, I bet you agree. (not that they can allways correctly sort it out, but also we adults can't do that allways)
So they very intuitively understand the exception in the case of a meeting with a potential dangerous person and I bet, instinctivly act accordingly and not tell him, where others are hiding for example. (Or break down and cry, also a valid strategy)
If you have a special case where RDBMs can't fill your need, then you obviously have to build your own. But these cases are so rare that it proves the rule.