4ydx

Yeah I guess this is about casting down damnation on any words or phrases that have in any way bothered the author in the past. It is a totally out of context assertion, I would say. I describe things that I like as being "sexy". It hardly is a term that only applies to women :P

Really? If the person isn't performing, you have to let them go. In what world is a startup being so generous as to give new employees options that they "grow into"?

Essentially what you are saying is that the company has every right to act generous until it actually matters (you know when people finally get paid). Very classy /s

Wow this is pure gold. I cannot understand why I have never run across this until now. Thank you for pointing this out!

Of course math works across all languages and I didn't think you were implying that, but using a word in a mathematical context carries a lot of precision with it. It isn't simply a layman's usage. The words don't make the description work, but the math behind it does. This applies to programming languages as well.

OpenGL is a collection of api calls that move buffer data around. It is an api for interacting with shaders compiled into a program. This is all done in 2D, 3D, and even 4D. The rendered product is a screen which only has 2 dimensions, but calling it 2D is a huge oversimplification.

When beginners start strutting around acting as if their "framework" or approach is better than the norm, the sceptic in me comes out to play. The likelihood of them actually having found a better way is pretty slim. Sure it happens but not everyday.

How precisely do you expect to be able to map from something imprecise to something precise? The idea of giving the author complete control over the higher level terms they use sounds like a nightmare in the making honestly :) Being able to understand somebody elses code requires that it be written in a way that is at least familiar in terms of syntax.

To say that natural language is "effective" does not, honestly, ring a bell with me. I guess we think about effective on totally different terms. Math is effective. Spoken language is not in my opinion. On a general level this sounds more like somebody feeling frustrated that the computer didn't "understand them".

I currently work in an office space in Japan that is shared with another company and, I have to say, I cannot stand all of the chatter. It has gotten to the point that I often wear earplugs just so that I can get something done.

Interesting. It is the polar opposite for me.

Another post about Go where the Rust crowd comes out to play. I cannot wait for your language to stabilize so that you will no longer feel the emotional need to bash on golang :)

Don't let copsarebastards phase you. They seriously hate golang as is obvious from their prolific ranting about its deficiencies in many a thread. I really wish they would just let it go, but some people really obsess over how "right" they are in their thinking. It is myopic really. Golang is a wonderful language (even without generics) :) It is the first language I have ever enjoyed writing concurrent code.

Well I guess I am an idiot for really enjoying programming in go :)

Yeah I have to second this, a lot of people are really off the mark about how "useful" their abstract solutions to a problem are. Often something is very over-engineered. Once you have to build anything complex on that type of foundation, well, good luck to you!

Besides from what I understand the lack of generics is mostly about compile time speed. I love how fast go compiles and would rather that not change.

The last time I checked this is a link about go? Or no?

I don't personally use functional programming languages on a daily basis, but this, I feel, is the veil between programmers who are highly successful and those who limp along: being able to have a mathematical (side effect free) approach to solving problems. This requires being able to break a larger problem into subsets. The closer you can get your methods to not having affects on the global scope, the better a programmer you will become. In other words, you don't have to be able to keep the whole problem in you head, but you have to be able to recognize how to subdivide the problem into manageable bits.

The other major trap that I think affects programmers is not appreciating what is happening when you transform your data: when you make a change to data state, how does that affect the system? Where are you persisting that change? Do you need to persist a change or is it simply a temporal snapshot of something happening?

Basically if somebody claims to be a "good" programmer, but they don't have a solid grasp on set theory, they I'm sceptical that they will be a "good" programmer in the long run. Naturally you also have to become familiar with the language you are using and the environment you are developing for.

This might be the first to-the-point comment I have read on HN that gives a clear perspective on the differences without being arrogant. Needing or not needing a rich numeric hierarchy is a great way to summarize it, I think. All of the hate towards a lack of generics really makes me wonder what programs people are writing that they feel they really need them given the fact that go does have interfaces. Nice post!

Isn't force a large assumption on your part? Is Obama actually in control of the NSA, making them do what they do?

I think you should consult with a doctor as people have said.

You should also consider trying something that breaks your current schedule because it isn't working for you. Every year I try something new. This year I have been going to sleep before 10pm and get up at 6:30am. This has been a sort of revelation for me in terms of feeling better throughout the day, but it might not work for you.

It sounds job related to me. You should force yourself to get up for more frequent drinks of water/walks around the office and, whether you want to or not, you should probably stop using a computer in the evenings perhaps a few days per week. See what that does for your mood. If you do this for 3 or 4 weeks and nothing really changes, then you can explore other reasons for your exhaustion.

My routine requires me to walk about an hour a day and I exercise once a week (not hardcore by any means). That might help as well.

Anyway I can relate. I often feel that way but I think it is due to work pressure.

Dude, just be a rebel and go off and program go however you like. All of your railing is pointless. Things change over time at different rates for different reasons. Clearly you personally feel insulted because you like to think of yourself as being an outside-the-box type of thinker who comes up with new clever ways of doing things. Good for you. Keep it up and don't forget to teach us along the way, but remember that simply railing against a communities standard approach is rather pointless. With your better way, lead on :)

I see you all the time in these go threads, by the way. You would better spend your time forgetting about go and doing something else since you so clearly detest it for not having generics (obviously less convenient than a functional language, but clearly not required to do programming).

Man this transition feels like it is going to take my lifetime. Years ago it felt like an internet based on demand (+cheap) option should have been available. It is a simple thing to fantasize about but a difficult thing to realize it seems. For me personally the price point still feels too high given that I never get to own any content.

1) You just start coding. 2) You code everyday. 3) All the other things you did? You do those after your prototype is done.

After you have this rhythm you realize you start to need goalposts. Make them small. Don't think for hours about how it might affect the rest of your code. Just find a goalpost (as small as possible without making it trivial) and do it.

Really the things you listed in your blogpost are totally unnecessary and are, frankly, severely minor in comparison with the actual doing-of-the-project in the larger scope. It doesn't matter what language you use as long as you are familiar enough with it to get-stuff-done. So just stop trying to build a new project with multiple sets of new tools. At most have one new tool when starting a new project. Any more is really counterproductive. As a side note, the fact that you installed linux and described it as being "for the coolness factor" really makes me wonder though. There, quite seriously, are no other options for a small company/individual developer.

Ubuntu releases on specified dates and has names associated with those dates. Basically arguing that a date dilutes the value of the release seems pretty weak to me. Given that we are "engineers" who are people I think we would be able to look at a changelog of some sort and understand what a particular time stamp brings with it.

They are only numbers after all.

Or have no other way to feed yourself?

Wow Dan is so nice. The first post I saw on the page was somebody asking if Dan would give the poster pointers about their site. I recall recently reading something about reaching out to other successful people by asking if you can help them somehow rather than the other way around. Yet, Dan went out of his way to write a fairly lengthy critique of the poster's website. Nice guy.

Yes their rules might be more specific than the general rule, but that is not a problem. Their rules were a correct subset of the more general rule (if what you are describing is accurate). Now if they are claiming a broad hypothesis and only providing a set of data that asserts a subset of the hypothesis, that is a problem. They are being misleading one way or another. If the researcher is presenting a hypothesis and misses out on data (for whatever reason), then somebody else will (ideally) point this out. Nonetheless, just acting like this misrepresentation can happen therefore don't trust some particular study is little more than baseless criticism.

The comparisons with physical locations are not the same because an owner of a property will not let somebody come along and just build a random alternate access point into the building. As far as I am aware, these videos are released in a manner that somebody else can use them. Somebody wants to add captions? They can. Freely.

If adding captions is really so simple, then the deaf institution needs to make the captions on its own. The information, after all, is freely available.

If this is not simple to do, then we should be sympathizing with the organizations that provide the content for free. Clearly the cost will be higher and the amount of available information will be restricted which hurts the larger number of users who can hear.

Maybe we should shut off the internet because there are poor people in the world who are not able to access it in the first place?

There is no exhaustive pattern matching in golang. And you would have to define your own unmarshall function that translates "Rent" into, perhaps, a const. So, yes, type safety in golang is not as powerful as it is in Haskell. I think we already knew that though didn't we :)

Yeah using binary protocols seems to be the new hotness. It all makes me feel so old with my preference for simple ascii text files.

I watched the entire video which was interesting, but I noticed that he is performing read operations on a map without any kind of read lock. That is not safe behaviour I am pretty sure :)

I don't think he means innovation which seems to be what you are implying. If you take a current working computer system, there are no "mysteries" in the existing hardware where the hardware designer just threw up their hands and decided to hope it would work. Sure when you throw in environmental factors there is certainly unpredictability in terms of hardware failure, but actually understanding what the system is doing? We know what it does. With something like the human body, it doesn't seem that we can be nearly as confident.