The word to keep in mind here is 'can', or I would say 'may'. The increasing tendency of crying wolf at anything you don't like by squeezing it into a category where it can't rock the boat anymore is not really helping us move forward collectively.
I have enough scars from complex Golang-applications; I'm just wrapping up a port of a 5kloc Golang-codebase to C++ and one of the things that struck me is how much declaring intentions and having them checked by the compiler helps. It's not that easy to prove decreased readability, it's more a gut-feeling of additional effort being required to keep track of everything. It's an issue I've found in any language that favors structural sub-typing, it's just that Golang is pretty exceptional at bragging about about it. What saves Golang in my opinion is the possibility of declaring types in hierarchies, which solves some of the problems; but you still have the issue where random types are part of a hierarchy without any hints in the code except for which methods are implemented.
"The most important change introduced into Strongtalk is the move from structural to declaration based subtyping. This change was made because: Structural type descriptors do not express programmer intent, and are difficult to read. Error messages produced by structural checking are poorly localized and very hard to understand. This is especially true in a large system with lots of internal cross references like Smalltalk."
Word. Yet fast-forward 30-ish years and structural typing is sold as a feature again. I swear Golang is doing so much backwards that it's starting to look intentional, like a Google-sponsored LOLCODE.
I did the same thing early on in my career. Shut down several major ski-resorts in Sweden for an entire day during booking season by doing what we always did, running untested code in production to put out fires. Luckily, my company and our customers took that as a cue to tighten up the procedures instead of finding someone to blame. I hear this is how it works in aviation as well, no one gets blamed for mistakes since that only prevents them from being dealt with properly. Most of us are humans, humans make mistakes. The goal is to minimize the risk for mistakes.
Sounds more like you've become more experienced and critical, shit happens :) Boring free-time projects will kill your soul; letting go takes practice, but just giving something away for free is plenty good enough.
I've kept an eye on D over the years, but that's still too much magic for me. What C++ (and Lisp) gets right is providing user code with the same powers as the compiler. I realize that getting there is what turned them into complex beasts, but plenty could be left behind should one decide to make a clean cut. The problem from my perspective is that we're working both ends of the spectrum, backwards compatibility and fancy new ideas; but no energy is spent on cleaning up and refining what's already there.
These days I prefer trusting my senses and actual experience to taking random authorities perspectives for granted. I wasn't always like this, once upon a time I believed anything that came from so called "respected members" of this society; but over time I got burned so many times that I just can't be bothered any more. Tell me about personal experience, something you reflected on yourself; and I'll listen.
Word. Anything out of the ordinary will be shot down asap to protect the egos involved. Social Darwinism; it's all one big competition these days, and in a competition you either win or loose.
Agreed; distributed, free and secure group communications is a much needed, missing piece of the puzzle. If only I could figure out how to make it pay the rent. A couple of extra brains/hands wouldn't hurt either...
I would like a C++ without the spider webs. Not different, we have plenty of different languages out there; I have no interest in debugging other peoples fancy ideas. I just want a powerful language that lets me say what I mean without keeping 30 years of accumulated exceptions in mind.
"Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourselves, Who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, fabulous? Actually, who are you not to be? You are a child of God. Your playing small does not serve the world. There is nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won't feel insecure around you. We are all meant to shine, as children do. We were born to make manifest the glory of God that is within us. It's not just in some of us; it's in everyone. And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others."
How about simply working on what you find interesting and sharing the results with the world for free? If more people did that, this world would be a better place.
Advertising is about creating artificial problems and needs, making the world a shittier place for profit. Maybe pulling your head out of your ass would help?
Kind of makes you wonder who the ignorant, coward, order-following child-killers for profit of the digital world are. Running Windows Update doesn't really compare.
Not all hacks are low quality/throw away code, some even survive their products. I recently implemented email processing as separate Python processes that are remote-controlled via stdin/out; definitely a hack, but at the same time it works pretty well and allows me to keep moving while Golang's email libraries sort themselves out. Striving for perferction is fine; pretending to be perfect, not so much.
I follow Polya's advice, and find a part of the problem that I know how to solve. Divide and conquer, basically. I think the panic comes from overload, from trying to visualize too many parameters. I've been doing this for 30 years, but I still get the same experience every time I step out of my comfort-zone.
A conversation will be dominated by whatever it needs to be dominated by to go where it needs to go. Assuming you know best and labeling what runs contrary to your ideas as extreme suggests you're looking for validation, not conversation.
I don't really think my landlord was treating me illegally, unethical perhaps considering the situation. Unbabel helped me set up the contract for the apartment. They knew that I was stuck with it for four months when they fired me.
I removed the reference to my current financial situation as some people took it as an invitation to speculate about my private life and start giving financial advice. The point I was trying to make is that I'm not trying to get rich by squeezing more money out of Unbabel.
And just for the record, everyone hasn't loved it so far. The last thing I did before being fired was opting out of surfing because I didn't enjoy it at all. I got the feeling that most of the employees would rather have done something else, including working.
No, the contract was presented and explained to me by the founders, at the time they treated me like royalty so it didn't even cross my mind to question them or waste money on a Portuguese lawyer. And where I come from, having a contract means you need a good reason to break it.