bpizzi

> Maybe, just maybe we should try to remember that these folks are PEOPLE and still deserve to be treated with a modicum of decency

Purely anecdotal, but this is happening far too often: it's a bad weather day, waiting under the 5m long city tram station's getting protected from the rain, then someone comes and sit right next to me, lightning it's damn cigarette like there was absolutely no problem.

This is the kind of behavior that makes you actually forget that "these folks are people and still deserve to be treated with a modicum of decendy", because they clearly don't give a shit about others themselves.

For the record, I was not confusing anything here, it was you thinking that I was first listing languages then frameworks, which was not the case.

I literally said 'Rails is a framework for building webapp, whereas Go is a language with a standard library'. what's your point?

Not sure if you were being sarcastic...

But this is exactly what 'go mod' is NOT doing. It's called 'Minimal Version Selection'. Quoted right from the lead core dev's blog: ' For stable development, today's build list must also be tomorrow's build list.' (https://research.swtch.com/vgo-mvs).

From what I gathered, 'go mod' is the first mainstream tool which is going that way (but I would be glad to be proved wrong!). Other package manager are using lock files which have their caveats (see https://research.swtch.com/cargo-newest.html for an in depth examination of the revered cargo approach on low-fidelity builds).

Well, the comparison is not really fair, Rails is a framework for building webapp, whereas Go is a language with a standard library.

To simplify a bit: Go is in the same bag as C++/C#/Java, Rails is in the same bag as PHP & [Symfony/Laravel].

If you're mass building CRUD web applications against customers requirements then, clearly, RoR is the best tool for the job (versus Golang).

> ways of fetching dependencies (modules vs dep)

Yes, an 'official' package manager have clearly not been a target for the core team for a (way too) long time, whereas Rust has envisioned that 'community' part from the beginning.

> I couldn't care less about formatting differences between repos.

Whereas, to me, an official, no-question-asked tool like 'gofmt' is godsend. It really depends on what you're building and in which context.

> , building (seems to have consolidated around go build vs make)

Not sure here, 'go build' is clearly the idiomatic building way from almost day one.

> Both the above languages I can build a codebase I've never seen before and have it running within minutes even without README.

That was rather not (enough?) straightforward under %GOPATH% era, indeed. Today, with Go modules, its a one liner 'git pull; go build', granted you have Go 1.11 available in %PATH% and that the codebase already have a go.mod file (if not, a 'go mod init <pkgname>' should fix it).

> Writing a web application that responds to a post request. I am guessing I can use net/http library to achieve that. But does it implement CSRF prevention automatically, or should I be already informed about including it as a developer?

I think I get where you may come from. Indeed, Golang (the language and its standard lib) is not a framework-language toolkit ala RoR. The standard lib is providing building blocks with really straightforwards and clear documentation (check https://golang.org/pkg/net/http/#pkg-overview).

> or should I be already informed about including it as a developer?

I guess you really should, whatever language/framework you're currently using.

> what i have meant was mostly about the way an application is built with golang.

Yes, clearly the confusion may be here, I took it as "the language is not opinionated", whereas you were in fact saying that the language and its standard library are not a universal web application toolkit/framework.

> Golang's not being an opinionated software [...] "what is the best way of implementing it in Golang?" then unfortunately the answer is "Do as you want".

I'm really not sure. Idiomatic Go is something well covered. Gofmt is ensuring consistent formatting. The official docs have an entry dedicated to this: https://golang.org/doc/effective_go.html.

And what would be an opinionated language if Golang is not?

> Unfortunately, a quick guide like this doesn’t seem to exist, so I’m writing one here. You’re welcome.

Well, `go help modules` is a good combination of exhaustiveness and conciseness, IMHO.

> I suspect a lot of it comes down to I'm simply not interested in what many people are.

That could be starting point, imho.

The author must just not be groking Heinlein.

Seems like your misreading me for some kind of pretentious father who has the answer to everything. Which I'm not, I just made choices. We should stop here.

How old are you? What were you doing at 7 on the internet? What do you think a 7yo would do today on current's web?

> until they realize all their friend's games are way more entertaining

Either we're not from the same continent/culture (I'm french), or you're completely disconnected from what a 5/7 yo child is doing nowadays.

The ultimate toy in my oldest's school currently is glass balls. Buy him a hand of new colorful glass balls and he'll be the king of the school for the day.

Tablets games? PS4? Fb/youtube? Smartphones? Yes, maybe in 5 years, if even. Right now the oldest's dearest aspiration is to someday be able to go to school alone. And the young one?

At 5yo he's barely a child, what he's looking after is his parents' attention, getting cuddled, and laughing as much as possible.

My sons' friends are just the same.

> tick tock OP

What's your point anyway? Of course they're going to grow, the grow a little bit every day in fact. Actually, I'm not sure you're a parent.

I agree! Maybe you misread me, or maybe it's me not having been clear enough: I do expose them to adult speech/logic/vocabulary, it's just that I encourage and arrange the meaningful dialogue to start with a "How" instead of a "Why". It's just semantic (and me hoping that it will spark a scientific interest/method).

Hmm, it was a joke, actually.

I get your point, yet I'm not sure it reflects the (nuanced, as always) reality.

They're not really in a bubble: they're exposed to ads outside of home (TV at other places, Cinema, street boards, on city buses...).

I hope that this clear separation between "no ads/home" and "ads/outside" is sufficient to cross a threshold in their mind which makes them thinks "Ads are not meant to be ubiquitous".

And when I notice that this threshold is being crossed, then I'm here to tell them "looks, choosing if we're exposed to ads in on us!".

And I hope that this low-age learning will help them later in life (more or less >12/15, imo).

Has another commenter said, and I agree with him, as kids grows into teenage age, supporting and explaining is more efficient than controlling.

> Angry Birds was a really nice game

IMHO it was a really bad game.

However, to me again, it was a really nice piece of addicting software.

Then I may have to reconsider my point of view, based on that new information I'm glad you made me aware of :)

> What age do you think is appropriate to introduce them to the internet?

My personal stake on this is: they're just barely starting to learn how to count, read and write. It's way too much early to have them seat before a whiteboard and hearing me speaking and drawing schemas about TCP/IP, subnets masks, transport and routing protocols, HTTP, HTML/JS hosting and delivery and finally what's going on in that blackbox that we call "a browser".

It's concerning me too. I'm just going into it one step at a time ;)

> Those new mini models are pretty neat too (nes, snes, playstation is coming out soon, n64 is sure to follow), although I dunno if kids these days would enjoy them as much as we did the original consoles.

My boys are loving Bomberman so much!

> I wonder if the kids ever asked you why companies are doing it?

Actually they ask "why" every time for every thing that I say :) My sons are not yet (to my eyes) sufficiently mature to really hear a thorough answer to "why". I try to make them asking "How?" instead. I'm a hacker, not a philosopher ;)

But, to relate to your answer, I'm not really trying to make them hating ads (thought I hate ads too, like you). Loving and hating things and people is up to them, I'm just giving context and knowledge (ok, sometimes it's hints on my own feelings on important subjects such as religion). That's of course a very personal pov on education.

Father of two little guys of 7 & 5 here. Personal story below.

There's no tablets at home, no games on parent's smartphones. They have access to technology thought. But we are a "NO ADS ALLOWED HERE" kind of home :)

Netflix is freely accessible on the only TV we have, during "opening hours", so that they can choose actively their program and not be exposed to TV ads (the TV has only access to Netflix).

They can switch on a Raspberry with an emulator where they can play some games from the 80/90'. But they have to enter one command on the little Bluetooth keyboard (and they do!).

And finally they can sit at the home's PC, start windows, ask parents to open their session and launch complex games such as Age Of Empire.

No internet access, only books for now.

When they happen to be exposed to TV ads at grand-parents home, for ex, you can really see what kind of behavior ads are ingraining in little brains: "I want this!", "Why is this so short?", "Why don't they tell the price?". That's always an opportunity for me to educate them to what's actually happening before their eyes: "look guys, this is a company (some people at work) that's working to expose their products (toys) to your eyes, hoping that you will ask your parents to spend money to buy it. They're smart, but we are smarter!".

I'm very inclined to think that toddlers should not have access to tablets, moreover to mainstream games on Android/Iphone. My personnal guess is that It's not preparing them to mastering technology, it's preparing them to be addicted to technology.

This, and it's something baked into Spacemacs (easy to replicate with a vanilla Emacs, thought): working within a projectile-initialized folder, hitting <leader>po will open a TODO.org at the root folder of your project, where you can write anything you want (including inserting an Org-mode link to the file/line you were editing), and save/switch back to your file in a handful of keystrokes.

Downside: you end up with too much notes.

Yes, sorry for the harsh generalization.

> The benefits of some of those advances are questionable at best. Spending the last decade of your life commuting to doctor's offices (or bedridden) ain't no picnic, nor is rotting away in a forgotten corner of a human warehouse.

To me, it's absolutely not "questionable at best": it's a tremendous step for humanity on a path to a fully enjoyable long life.

On a population-wide point of view, the next step is that the first 60/70 years should be dedicated to building a strong body. Sport and nutrition, done intelligently (no mindless cardio, for example), can do wonders for the last 20 years of one's life.

A strong body can be achieved by virtually anybody with time and dedication, minus specific conditions (laziness is not a specific condition). I'm not talking about being lean and jacked, I'm speaking about strong body, with working joints that have been taken care of during the whole life.

Of course there's medical conditions specific to old age that can't be escaped even with a strong body, mainly brain decay. Science needs to continue its quest here. I've read that there's hints that Alzheimer may be linked somehow (in a complex way) to lack of sleep: I can assure you that you sleep well when you lift every two days, years after years. In the end there's no simply no logical reason to neglect our body.

The bulk of old people in nursing have just completely neglected their body for their entire life, and that's the main reason why they can't enjoy the last years. As a civilization, we should now focus on engaging current generations to prepare their body for the end.

> Will end-user applications ever be truly programmable? Emacs, Smalltalk, Genera, and VBA embody a vision of malleable end-user computing: if the application doesn't do what you want, it's easy to tweak or augment it to suit your purposes. Today, however, end-user software increasingly operates behind bulletproof glass. This is especially true in the growth areas: mobile and web apps.

I'll pick this one: end users back then (emacs/vba/smalltalk era) are the power users of today. Today's end users are a new kind of users.

You're literally playing with your life.