As you say, many entered the field beacause of a natural interest in tech, rather than pay. But that doesn't imply that they uncritically accept every new technology just because it's new. It seems like you're arguing for "tech for the sake of tech", which you're entitled to do. But now tech has a transformative impact on the world, and most did not consent democratically to said transformation. It makes sense for an adult to consider the effect that their role has on the world at large.
I'd like to think that actually-existing-telepathy would be a more transformative technology than something that simply allows people to do their existing work more conveniently.
The difference is that these rhetorical techniques need to be used with taste. LLMs just sprinkle them everywhere to try to make their copy sound good, even when it's completely inappropriate tone-wise. They don't make higher level judgements about when to employ specific features.
Completely agree. It's absolutely awful having software projects squatting on the names of great philosophers and artists. I appreciate that perhaps the author wanted to show their appreciation, but there are plenty of other equally communicative options.
The problem for me is not services where the content is online, you can just avoid those, but cases where access to scarce real resources is controlled through online verification. E.g. renting recording studios, background checks for job applications, things like this. Often there is no route that does not go through a third-party verification service.
I was pro-systemd at the time of the controversial discussions. I still think it's a net positive relative to what was there before. But personally speaking, it's only the core of the software (service management) that improved things for me. The other things (timers, journald) I either ignore or don't like, but perhaps they're useful for distributions.
I'm going to echo what everyone else is saying in this thread -- the inverse problem (YX) is by far the bigger issue with tech questions on the internet in general (mainly SO and IRC). It's common enough that it puts me off asking anything that's not entirely trivial. And yes, ChatGPT mitigates this to a large degree.
However there is definitely a place for pointing out XY problems in a work context, especially if you have to directly deal with the resulting code. You need a lot of shared context to have confidence that you've identified an actual XY problem.
Yep. Pre-generics, Java was considered a good teaching language because of its simplicity and the ability to hold the entire language in your head. I think it's much more difficult to make that argument now. The same for Python. Moreover, while Python 3's unicode/byte string separation was a crucial step, IMV other features from Python 3 haven't made a big impact on how useful the language is.
You have low expectations; I have Racket programs that have worked for over 10 years essentially untouched. More or less the same with Perl. We should be aspiring to Plato's cave (while accepting that we won't reach that).
The OSB has become a big bucket which UK politicians can point to and say "see, we're doing something". When faced with a question about the internet, the stock response of Tory MPs is to say "wait for the Online Safety Bill". In that way, it's quite similar to the situation before Brexit, where representatives would evade responsibility for policy by claiming that their hands were tied by Brussels.
It's been a while since I last was experimenting with them. I did try Guice briefly, but I stopped for some reason that I don't recall now. Perhaps I should have given it more time. Dagger I tried in a bit more detail, and I found the code-generation aspect of it to be unpleasant and not sufficiently abstracted. I don't know if that could have been addressed by IDE configuration, plugins, etc, but I had to stop working on that project.
I like Spring, Spring Boot is good, and the libraries do stuff that you'll need (while maybe you don't realize whether you'll need it yet).
I'm a DI fan and I've found alternative DI frameworks to not work as well as Spring's DI. I'm only talking about Spring's annotation-based configuration.
There are also several good reasons not to like it, though: the errors can be unbelievably confusing, and it's quite hard to get a good mental model of how and why things are done in it.
I don't have any data on it, but I'd speculate that CGI is still fairly widely used. Though how widely it's used with Python is another issue. Regardless of how poorly designed the cgi module is, removing it without providing a one-module migration path in PyPI doesn't seem like an obvious win.
As someone wrote further down the thread, the official position of React is that it's not a framework, so it's not just this article making this point.
I agree with you that there's something slightly wrong about that framing on the part of the devs.
But this is just the old descriptivism/prescriptivism divide again.