zak_mc_kracken

Might be worth mentioning that the project has been abandoned for a few years (it ran out of funding) and that Gilad now works on Dart at Google.

That is some crazy amount of spin. SourceForge started their path down the scummy side a while ago but this is really taking it to a new level.

You'd think that if they really cared, they would back pedal on what they did, but no, instead, they double down by trying to justify what they did and "welcoming further discussions".

Also, this:

> deliver easy-to-decline third-party offers

How about delivering third-party offers that users need to opt in instead?

Terrible, terrible company and organization.

I'm puzzled about the asymmetry of the syntax. What's the reason behind

    map[Point]string

as opposed to something more symmetrical?

Ok, so who is this person you are referring to?

No, you are confusing people.

The person is James Strachan, he created Groovy. Since then, he abandoned Scala and he's now a committer on Kotlin (or was, not sure if he still is, he tends to bounce around projects a lot).

> There's a legitimate feeling the language tacked on way too much, too soon.

A lot of people certainly feel this way, and this feeling has given rise to the first crop of post-Scala languages: Ceylon and Kotlin.

I'm sure there will be more.

> If a good team nails the guidelines down before hand on which idioms they plan to use and stick to them, yeah.

So, like we used to do with C++? Anyone old enough to remember "C++ is fine as long as you define a well specified subset and stay away from certain features"? Even today, this is still what Google does about C++.

Hopefully we learned that this is never a good sign about a language.

So now, your Scala can be both slow to compile and also slow to run!

Seriously though, that's a pretty cool project.

> Much of the hostility people are seeing in my post history is frustration with the industry

Then stop attacking people and get used to the idea that you might be wrong on certain things pertaining to FP.

You've never been to France or you never paid much attention in school, did you?

Probably both.

"Millions of people on the planet believe in Santa Claus, proving that it's very easy to create cover ups involving crowds across multiple continents".

See the fallacy you're committing there?

True. What makes this model compelling is that our flawed intuitions are very good at describing the world we live in, which is macroscopic and non relativistic.

Letting go of these intuitions is a requirement to become a competent physicist.

Again, that says absolutely nothing about the quality of Go compared to other languages. You can write programs that work in Go, big deal.

Maybe it would have been easier or harder with another language? Who knows.

The valuation has everything to do with Docker's business model and nothing to do with the language they use to implement that vision.

> Tell me then why Go is being used to drive so many big projects?

False dichotomy. The fact that a language is being used for big projects (or used at all) doesn't mean it has great design. Think of PHP...

I also completely fail to see what Docker's funding has to do with Go's design.

It's particularly baffling when, in response to:

> But I disagree that putting commands in comments at all is a good idea. Just because other languages do it doesn't make it a good idea. It's clearly a hack to get around some historical problem, and we're better than that.

A member of the Go team says:

> Where you see a hack I see an elegant design.

It's never been an elegant design, at best, it was an acceptable design in the 90s.

That's both an appeal to wrongful authority and irrelevant.

You don't judge a software product by the credentials of who wrote it, you judge it by whether it's a good software product or not.

You have a very naïve view of the world and an unrealistic conception of what open source is.

> Just because it is open source does not me (a) that your changes will be mainlined, (b) that your changes will be even considered or (c) that you will logistically be able to maintain an ongoing fork.

Or d) that I have any time in my life to undertake such work.

> Our conservatism should be a testament to how much we care about quality.

Offering code generation as a solution to code reuse is not caring about quality, it's laziness.

> We underestimated the passion the consumer had for this

The passion of their customers to not put up with bullshit?

Yeah, they definitely underestimated that.

Why reinvent an editor from scratch? This is pretty much a guarantee that you will get zero traction.

Your time would be much better spent writing a plug-in for Eclipse or IDEA.

> it is hard not to see the power that comes from simplicity

Actually, it is quite hard for anyone who's not already versed in Lisp and equipped with some reasonable knowledge of basic FP constructs such as folds.

It's also important to look at the whole picture, and the author of the paper (and FP advocates in general) have this interesting tendency to completely ignore the opportunity cost of using FP and to dismiss the advantages of alternative approaches over FP.

Personally, I think laziness and immutability come at a very heavy price that explains why only the superficial aspects of FP (lambdas) have been adopted while the rest of FP remains the realm of research papers and conferences.

"Peek", damn it, "peek".

You're not climbing a mountain stealthily, you're allowing people to "peek" into an early version of your product.

How hard is it to just use common sense before writing words, seriously?

He meant 'viral' as a negative.

The GPL is pretty much banned across the entire industry because of the fact that it forces accompanying software to be open sourced as well, which is a deal breaker for most companies.

This is a pretty standard multithreading problem that has nothing to do with mutability or immutability.

> "At what point in the frame was this change made?" Some parts of the game may have looked at the original version, while others looked at it after the change. Now magnify the potential for crossed-wires by all of the destructive rewriting going on during a typical frame, and it's a difficult problem.

Not really, it's a pretty trivial problem and one of the least concerns of game programming these days.

As opposed to Apple and Microsoft?

It's not his original page because he took it down (probably because he realizes this article makes him look incompetent).

I always tell recruiters that my current salary is irrelevant. What's relevant is what I want my compensation to be in my next job, and I give them that number.

Same thing when I interview: if the company insists on knowing my current salary (bit of a red flag already), I lie and I tell them what I expect them to pay me if they hire me. In the unlikely scenario they will find that I lied (my current employer should certainly not disclose that information to them), no big deal walking away, they were most likely going to underpay me anyway.

FYI, this is Joe Armstrong (the creator of Erlang)'s rant on OO.

It's a pretty shallow article with hardly any substance that was written more in reaction to the fact that nobody is (was) paying attention to Erlang than an informed criticism of OOP.