commentzorro

For my use cases, discoverability and ad hoc queries just don't apply.

Would you care to elaborate on this? I'm interested in why.

If your current employer would list the $10,000 per seat price (or even a range -- $8,000 - %12,000 per seat depending on reasons) then someone was willing to consider an order of magnitude less could immediately skip your employer's product. Instead, it's their desire to have potential customers open a dialog so you can explaining value proposition and get them more invested. We can get to know each other as people and touch bases again next year ...

That crap is exactly the problem, not the solution. I don't want to take the time to be polite if I know your price is an order of magnitude out.

You're right.

It's a bad thing because I want to spend exactly as close to zero seconds looking at a product or service that's going to immediately be ruled out because the price is too high for my budget. If I can see the price I can avoid all the communications and discussions and move on.

Also, when price is constantly negotiable I stand the risk of becoming dependent on a product only to find the company raising on me (and not across the board) based on their belief that I can be squeezed because I am dependent. Look no further than Oracle for this type of behavior.

(I liked my hyperbolic scenario because it was short and involved both kids and ice cream. Who dares to challenge kids and ice cream? ;-)

No, I don't want to negotiate a price, discuss my use case, or provide any information as to how I would be using the product in order to get a price. Can you imagine buying a house, a car, a most anything else like this?! "So, are you planning to eat that gallon of ice cream yourself or are you going to give it to kids at a birthday party? A party ... maybe we can work out a deal."

Edit: here's a possibly better response than the "do it yourself" response:

XXX is a free and open source project. That means the developers put in the majority of their time on the issues that they want and enjoy coding the most, even if other good features are left out. If you're unable to help out with coding yourself, you could look through the open and closed issues and see of others have thought about your feature request too. If an open issue exists, a short "while I don't have the ability to code this, I'd like this feature too," added to the list would let the developers gauge interest and may sway someone into giving it a try. Thanks.

Edit 2: It's a bit long. This sentiment but shorter.

I don't have any real problems with jQuery being in the mix for intercooler. Even with that, jQuery appears to be an underlying library used for convenience rather than a library an intercooler coder would have to know and code against.

I do appreciate the irony when taken in context with the original article though.

I see this "it's open source, make pull request" type of comment quite a lot but don't understand how you'd know if the person you're saying it to could do it. If not, it's kind of a dick move, isn't it?

I've got a basic app with JSON end points already created. I was going to give VUE a go but after looking at intercooler I'm going to create an alternate set of /IC/* URLS and send out HTML instead. I'll soon see how it works for this task.

Yeah, how dare he have an opinion that runs counter to the known truth. He has attacked the Body. He is not one with Landru.

Ideally I'd like the compiler and compiler syntax to fade away as much as possible while coding my applications. Only the domain syntax should remain: the syntax that allows me to turn my thoughts into working code free of any distractions to satisfy the compiler, error handling, etc.

Elixir: The BEAM runtime, if I'm going to be fair to C# and Java. Elixir is the most elegant language I've seen in years. I really wanted to like it. I purchased all the available books and really dove in. But then I stumbled on the soft spot of number crunching essentially being left out of the language at the lowest level! That's a tough one to get over as a couple applications I have do lots of financial "what if" calculations. Also Phoenix has an annoying list of dependencies (Node???) and a complex configuration compared to Go.

D: I wanted this to be my primary language after reading Andrei's book when it first came out. Unfortunately D wasn't there yet (this was during the shift from D1 to D2). And after D2 solidified as "D" it has has been moving towards memory layout, CTFE, removing garbage collection, and other lower level stuff that I just don't care about. All of my applications are at a business level and dealing with memory and performance optimization is just not something I am ever concerned about.

Rust: Rust sits at an even lower level than D. I really like the higher level ideas and syntax but I absolutely don't want to think about ownership issues. If that part of the language were removed Rust would be pretty ideal. But then it wouldn't be Rust. Manually controlling the ownership process is a core part of the language and would be pretty hard to change.

Python: Bad deployment situation on Windows. But also I've decided I really prefer the compile time type checking. And while I notice the speed issue I can't really say it's a problem for the applications I code. But I do like the blazing speed of Go and the other compile to the machine level languages.

Dart: Hits on most every item on my checklist. But again, a bad deployment situation. And Dart's focus has shifted towards the JavaScript side and away from a general application language and server side language.

Nim: I'll add Nim because it shows so much promise. I've followed Nim for years, support them on Bounty Source, pre-ordered the book, and keep up with progress. However it's got probably close to a year before 1.0 and probably three or four years before it is as production ready as Go is now. But all in all it's shaping up to really hit the sweet spot for business level apps at a compile to binary level.

Honestly, Go has so much going for it that the items I find missing just aren't nearly enough to stop using it. But, for me, it could be so much better with just a half dozen additions. It's frustrating to see it so stagnant after just being born.

There is no other language that fits my purpose better. Does that have to mean Go is perfect? That I have to stop complaining ... even if it means no change will come about? Even if you think it may be perfect but I don't?

I think Go makes a very nice general purpose language. Better than the others I've tried: C#, Java, D, Rust, Dart, Python, Elixir, and more. All have critical flaws that make them worse for my purposes. If another better language comes along I'll switch. In the meantime I'll continue to use it but will complain about the things I wish I could change but don't have the ability to change myself.

>> ...although I think the same of _most_ languages.

Please elaborate on the non-mosts. I likely have missed many in my searches.

-- Continuously bring up that something is wrong.

-- Get them to agree that their viewpoint is good but not perfect.

-- Get them to agree that a change wouldn't be bad.

-- Get them to admit that a change might be good.

-- etc.

We're just now finishing the first step the are into the second. We keep going. Fight on soldiers!

Isn't this (as stated in another post) a case of revenge? (Legal revenge as it were.)

Explain the false part please.

The point of the article is that the .01% can fund a series of unrelated lawsuits because you publish an article unflattering of their industry, political stance, ideology, or just stating that cats or better than dogs.

For the 300 it's a trivial amount of money. Like us spending $1000 to shut down a web site we didn't like. (using them to us as 1,000,000,000 : 10,000,000 = 100,000 : 1,000)

My points are that first, this is both really scary because of how relatively few people are in this position and second, we've gone too far: there's no longer any way to stop these people from essentially doing anything they want to control us. They've become effectively gods who will allow us to live out our insignificant lives only if we don't annoy them.

-- Edit (to continue the metaphor cuz fun). --

Remember, the infraction wasn't posting the video on Gawker. The infraction that pissed of this god was being outed as gay. Essentially, this god was angered by being outed. He opened up a portal to our world via the Hulk Hogan video. His lightning bolts were the series of lawsuits he had lined up.

It's also worth noting that this is a god doing battle with a demi-god. Could you imagine the trivial amount of power (= money) (= free speech) that he would need expended to take out one of us antlike mortals.

If you could shut down breitbart or the drudge report (or your least favorite liberal sites) you wouldn't because you're a benevolent god. But then one day you wake up and find that they've passed judgement on you. Well, they can't pass judgement on a god. So you wave your hand and take them out without so much as making the most minor impact in your existence. "I'll show those mortals how judgement is passed! Talk bad about me, will they." That's the real issue here.