So we've been told. Part of my point here is that code like this is the opposite of more maintainable. Writing code for clueless people to read and understand is a loosing game for everyone, that energy is better used to cultivate skills collectively. This is about not having to differentiate between individuals, about being able to treat a bunch of coders as a code-factory; which is very convenient but neither efficient nor humane.
I think you are confused. The whole point of software is to create something that didn't exist before, building the same software over and over again doesn't make any sense. I'm not talking about creativity in interpreting business rules, I'm talking about creativity in building software.
Karma is part of the echo-chamber strategy, a way to enforce public opinion over wider perspectives that might rock the boat. Funny thing is that it actually kind-of works the other way, since any post/comment that gets a lot of down-votes is probably on to something fundamental. You are not a number, don't let them trick you into behaving like one.
Write more code, solve the problems you are passionate about in the best way you can think of; lather, rinse & repeat. Public opinion will always represent the lowest common denominator, it couldn't be otherwise. It's not about proving who's smartest or has the most impressive CV; it's about tapping into the source of who you are and what you want to create.
We are all here to express our creativity, that's priority #1 and the only reason we ever went anywhere but in circles. I don't mind descriptive names; these names are not descriptive, these names are part of the process. This is how you really do it: 1) start from the problem you are trying to solve, 2) solve the actual problem in the easiest way possible to get experience, 3) improve the solution until it says exactly what you mean. Bottom up, not top down; skills and creativity, not rigid rules; that's how you build great software.
Being sweet-talked into raping the world for other peoples awesome profits comes easier when you're 20. The real problem is the messed up priorities of most companies these days; older coders are more likely to call bullshit and demand a fair share of the cake.
You know someone is certified when you have to scroll code sideways because the names don't fit the screen. I thought we already agreed that process is the opposite of progress? I mean come on, RequestCourseRegistrationInteractor, who are you trying to impress here? These processes were designed to turn humans into machines; to decrease the dependence on creativity and skill at the cost of additional effort and complexity; to enable large groups of unmotivated developers to deliver mediocre software reliably; which makes them sub-optimal for any other use case.
PCBs (1935-1977), Agent Orange (1965-1969), Aspartame (1985-2000); how many examples do you want? They have public, verifiable roots that go all the way back to the Nazis and Zyklon-B. Not to mention trying to take over and ruin the global food supply for profit with their artificial bullshit seeds and chemicals.
And until you have gone back and forth a couple of times, building moderately complex systems; it's difficult to appreciate the advantages that static checking bring to the table. Sure, it's possible to achieve the same effect with unit tests; but having half of those tests written and rewritten for you by the compiler definitely helps. Back in the days, I wanted to buy into the Python/Ruby hype as much as anyone; but having implemented several complex systems in Python/Ruby, I'm not that excited about the idea anymore; once they pass a certain point, agile begins to feel more like Jello.
I feel like it was a mistake to allow mixing the two styles inside the same function. I ran into enough issues with non-initialized returns during my adventures in Go to stop using named return parameters completely. To me, this feature has the same appeal as JavaScript's optional semicolons; or Pascals with-statements; convenience at the price of reliability and correctness.
The metabolic pathway-propaganda doesn't tell half the truth; there are plenty of living organisms and organs within the human body that are badly affected by Glyphosate; enough to make you wonder if that wasn't part of the plan all along. Nothing good ever came out of Monsanto, it's all harmful crap; it's mind-boggling that these psychos are allowed to continue given their track record.
Word.
Anyone who's not famous and tries stepping out of line will be put through the same meat-grinder. The majority seem to think that the way to get anywhere in this world is to make sure that no one else gets there first, which couldn't be further from the truth. That being said, there will never be any progress without people stepping out of line.
Modern medicine; you realize that just means it's new, right? From personal experience I can almost guarantee that the physical therapist would be just as clue-less as the rest of the white-coats. Their main task isn't to solve problems, it's to generate profits; and you don't generate maximum profits by solving problems.
I spent 13 years writing software in Delphi professionally. It's really more like 22 years of buggy, bit-rotting in-house developed software left behind in the dust as Delphi has pivoted is way forward over dead bodies. Not to mention 22 years of well-intentioned but delusional architectural decisions and numb-witted implementations stacked on top of a sinking foundation to check features. Every year they come up with revolutionary, proprietary and over-engineered solutions to the currently most popular problems; while consistently pretending like the crap they sold yesterday never happened. Delphi makes it easy to whip up a quick Windows GUI, and that's about it; hardly worth the insane amounts they've always insisted on charging. With a less greedy and marketing-driven approach, Delphi could have been great. The same could be said of many lost technologies.
Lately, yes. I remember some of the same feelings from 20 years ago when I dropped out of university to join my first startup. But it took leaving the whole industry behind to get here, it's sick and getting worse every day. These days I'm writing the software I want to write, the software that I feel needs to be written; the way I feel it should be written; and giving away everything for free (https://github.com/andreas-gone-wild/snackis). And as an added bonus I get a lot more quality time with my family then I ever could after having life squeezed out of me to generate awesome profits. Money can't buy that experience and comfortable is relative.
A-holes take notice, the times are changing. The only name here that deserves to be in history books is Susan J. Fowler's for having the courage to speak up.
Guarantee this, prohibit that. Meanwhile, no one gives a crap since the state/EU/CIA, whatever you want to call them; have already proven beyond doubt where they stand on these issues. You either encrypt everything yourself or you're potentially in trouble.
We're not training any one to become programmers, we're training them to become certified buzzword-speaking framework duct-tapers. It's not the same thing. What we aren't doing is focusing on what isn't working, challenging the status quo, taking a bigger perspective. These things take more than training, and there are no awesome profits to be squeezed out of the effort.
Forget about posting. Even visiting that stupid site will mess with your mind and others in unseen ways. All parties are at all times interacting with a set of algorithms optimized for profit/integrity intrusions/behavioral changes/god knows. You might think you're smart enough, but then why are they spending so much money on something that doesn't work. Just say no.
Tell what to email? I'm deep into the process of telling it to shut up and forward the anonymous, encrypted data here: https://github.com/andreas-gone-wild/snackis. It's still an excellent transport for async messaging.
It's an ongoing battle, even if eventual victory is inevitable. Plenty of work remains to put convenient, strong encryption; not to mention anonymity; in the hands of everyone all the time.
I sure hope turning the whole thing into a personality-attack was worth it for you. Do you ever consider the harm you do as you desperately fight to prevent alternate views from affecting your reality? Not to mention that it's a loosing game in the long run.
Brevity is a virtue; and Golang has very little of it.
Don't get me started on down-your-throat, manual error-handling; imports tied to repositories and opaque, mandatory N*M-threading; the outright hostility to features like flexible locking. Or the overly draconian package reference rules which turns any non-trivial software into a packaging-puzzle. There is plenty more LOLCODE-worthy contraptions in there...
Look, they even admit themselves that the primary goal was for the language to be easy enough for beginners to not hurt themselves; which is fine if that's what you're looking for; for me it's mostly a no go, since I need more power than that to not drown in the complexity of the problems I'm solving.
You're welcome, I have yet to run into a compiler that doesn't support COUNTER.
Correct, you would have to add trace statements at strategic points to get more detailed traces; but the granularity is up to you and once you have basic tracing in, it's usable for more than stack-tracing. In my opinion, basic tracing should be built into any substantial piece of code.