It's the age-old cartesian dualism between reason (good!) and emotions (bad!), which for some reasons still seduces many people. They believe they are more or less their pre-frontal cortex, so things like emotions get in the way of the Thinker.
Why should we trust any website and execute their JS code on our machine? What about privacy, if they decide they can track us and sell the information to whoever they want? And even if they're "legit", what about the 3rd parties they might trust wrongly?
As someone who actually likes books, this makes me sad. Leanpub and Gumrroad are already full of quite mediocre content, to the point that I avoid them altogether--which is a shame, since there are some serious self-published authors that would benefit from a good platform. These cheap ebooks (e-brochures?) also made their way into Amazon, which really annoys me.
In my experience, some people are too much attached to that good feeling of knowing "all there is to know" about something; this has the taste of proficiency, but the very real risk is to prefer the small pond because of that, calling the sea "overextended".
It's more about automatic type conversion than the API, though; numerics magically get converted to strings and vice-versa. This is convenient in some cases, especially for beginners who don't have to think about types, but it eventually bites you if you never realize what happens in your back.
If you know C, you can identify pretty well what are the (thin) PHP wrappers around the C routines. Java influenced the OO design, so you know where to find it, and Perl is mostly, well, PCRE. It's not consistent, but it's not _that_ hard to navigate.
Sounds like you just had a very bad experience with PHP, but it could have happened with most languages, honestly. I got (only) 20-year experience, but I have come across quite bad C codebases, poor Perl applications and terrible Java code, and I have thought 'never again' more than once, too.
> That's because I don't want to be robbed by the majority that always tends to vote for laws in order to steal from those who are successful so they themselves can be lazy.
Keep you randism for yourself please, it's really annoying to have to suffer listening to that ideology when it brings almost nothing to the discussion.
Something could be said for being able to convincingly explain why you're right to your coworkers/manager, without hurting their feelings (even though they might be stubborn about it at first). That's a precious soft skill.
You can make people change their behavior by shifting the weights, but it is pointless to tell them what their value should be. Make FF more convenient, or show how bad competitors are regarding to privacy.
Ah, the illusions. Many Russians lives in poverty and the state doesn't do anything for them, but the latter fuels their ideal of being a Great World Power. So they keep voting for those who fleece their country in exchange of some illusory identity.
Working time regulations is about preventing companies from using their excessive bargaining power on a tense job market in order to get the most desperate workers accept anything. You can be against it (I'm not), but it's another topic from part-timers vs full-timers.
Regarding wages, it's normal that you make more (ceteris paribus) if you work more. As for promotions, I guess it depends on the kind of role involved; many managerial roles are known for requiring pretty long hours, so this might not be compatible with 32-hour week for a start. But you should be able to move up from, say, junior to senior dev if you got the skills, whatever your working hours. Everything is not possible obviously, but when it is, mere working hours is a pretty lacking metric for merits and promotion--as the article points out.
> are you then going to be calling it unfair that he he's paid more than you? Are you going to be calling for an weekly hour cap to prevent it?
What a strawman--you make up jealousy and legal bans when no one has suggested any of those. Using that logic, are you going to call those who work less than you (because they value their quality time more than the shiny new toys) slackers? Are you going to prevent them from getting promoted because they don't work as much as you? This type of argumentation just does not lead to a constructive debate, imo.
The guy is pissed and he has a legitimate reason to be so; he doesn't try to embarrass anyone, I guess. The lib authors may be the most friendly guys of the city, it does not have much to do with the issue.
In all fairness, this is a problem that plagues the whole JS ecosystem and not just this lib, but it's no reason not to mention it anyways.
This is true for all ages and categories; there are good and bad younger programmers, good and bad middle-aged managers, good and bad grey beard *nix sysadmins etc.
No snark, but I guess white supremacists also find their model pretty useful. The obvious question is, does anything go, provided it makes some people feel good somehow?
The problem is that many people arguing think they are doing just that, going for total knowledge and not seeking to win arguments. It just happens that they believe they have better understood the point being discussed, and it is their duty to convince the other party, for the sake of knowledge.
> When this keystroke is hit, it appends the last argument of the previous command to the end of the current line
There's `Meta-_` to insert the previous last word, but you cannot cycle with the previous words--it inserts the last word of the previous commands. You can give it a count, though (with Meta+nums).
Which is my point, it's still roll-your-own, with some magic when necessary. I don't want to make a fuss about it, I mean, it's great for tinkering or small projects, but I prefer when my compiler works harder for me and actually enforces what is intended (bar some runtime reflection for very special cases).
Again, that's very Perl-ish, to me. "Here are some tools and tricks, use them to do your own OO if you want--but you can easily bypass it all every time you wish".
I get full well what it does, but I find the syntax "magic" and not very attractive. Why no special keyword for visibility, proper namespaces etc.?
In c++ and likes, I know there's a vtable somewhere, and I get why there must be one for virtual funcs, but I don't want to deal with it directly, it's the compiler job. Same for Python, I know it must prevent fields from getting clobbered when inheriting, but I don't want to be exposed to its mangling or whatever other mechanism it uses.
It's so crude that, again, it looks like implementation details having been promoted to specs. Field visibility and name mangling done with very magic underscores just doesn't look right, to me.
I would not call it "syntactic sugar", but rather a leak of implementation details. It could be deliberate, like Perl did for its OO (showing the entrails of all its objects), but it's not particularly sugary-sweet-yummy.
Saying that truth is just facts and logic is like saying that music is just maths. Yes, at some level, it is, but I'd rather listen to music actually made by musicians than mathematicians.
Noe one denies the virtues or achievements of logic, but as you know, the good ideas are also the most dangerous, since there is real danger of falling in love with them and applying them to everything ie. to a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
The idea that facts and logic are everything suggests that we could feed facts into some ubercomputer and the Truth would come out. As of today, it's clearly not the case--computers are excellent at computing, but they are pretty dumb. Humans must be around to select, prioritize, assign values, interpret, and put it all together. Otherwise, computers only spit the most mundane truths out of facts plus logic, and that was precisely one of the decisive criticism of positivim.