I don't think you intended that as a preface to your flawed argument, but it worked out well. No, the lack of parametric polymorphism is not a good thing. You are losing simplicity, not gaining it.
I see these complaints a lot, and they are certainly accurate, but they miss the point. I use AWS because when an app server explodes, a new one is automatically spun up and added to the load balancer pool. The OS image is loaded from s3, which I don't have to worry about backing up. The app is loaded from s3, the templates are loaded from s3. I don't have to do anything. I would absolutely love to use dedicated hardware for the consistent performance. But where can I get dedicated hardware that lets me provision new servers automatically and have them running with our custom OS image in minutes?
Oh right, I forgot that having both an opinion and a penis is a crime. How does being a man have anything to do with it at all? Plenty of non-technical people have come to very similar conclusions, some of them have even been women. You are seeing what you want to see.
It is pretty disappointing that these comparisons always seem to consider the server side template case as "we did it in the most horrible way possible, I know all the issues we had were solved long ago and we could do it right, but lets pretend that isn't possible because I want an excuse to do everything in javascript".
Did you seriously not notice how nothing in your list of accomplishments is even remotely relevant? We're talking about programming language research, and Pike's experience in that area is seriously lacking.
You don't need to believe anyone, that is the whole point. You are trying to turn it into "some guy's opinion vs the glorious and all-knowing rob's opinion". It is not a question of opinion, it is one of fact. Again, this problem was solved in 1976. ML is very old. Go read the papers on parametric polymorphism.
>Quick searches turn up slow compile times as a definite issue with generics
Where? I can find nothing of the sort. And given that we have proof otherwise (compare D to go for example) it seems likely that you are choosing to interpret "some languages made their compilers slower" with "parametric polymorphism must make a compiler slower".
You still have that option, I can't imagine any 4k displays would fail to support running at a 2x multiplier given that it is designed specifically for that.
No, he is talking about desktop environments and windowing systems that run on both, and have very little to do with either. What was your remark supposed to be implying?
Because the second clause is the problem, not the third. The third clause in 3 clause BSD is:
>Neither the name of the <ORGANIZATION> nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
Nobody said the BSD license is "broken", nor did they blame the license for anything. He simply pointed out that the license is not appropriate for what many people actually want, and pointed to licenses that are appropriate for those goals. If you want a totally free license where people can do anything, but you still hold copyright, then you want ISC/MIT/zlib, not BSD. Many people do not realize this.
Yes, it is still a fallacy. If you have an argument, you can make it without trying to rely on "famous person X agrees". And you seem to be confused about who Rob Pike is. He simply worked at bell labs. After everything important had already happened. He had nothing to do with the creation of unix or C, he just gets lumped in with them because he was at bell labs after the fact.
I have no idea what you are talking about. The fact that you can ignore the error, including doing so by accident, is the problem. Sum types solved this problem a very long time ago, and there is simply no reason for a language created in the last decade not to have them. It is very simple conceptually, the function should not return a value and an error, because only one of those actually is valid. So it should return a value or an error.
Yes, it is interesting how a lot of people assume that the most likely explanation is the right one. Of course it is possible that they got money somewhere else and don't need this kickstarter cash to keep the company afloat while they finish their known to be delayed and overbudget game. It just isn't very likely.
>fraud is totally cool because we're programmers and entrepreneurs
No, it really isn't. This is not a kickstarter to make a game, this is a kickstarter to help pay for the game they already made a kickstarter for before. It isn't about risk, it is about fraud.
No, it does not require a trade off. That is exactly what I just pointed out. There is no such problem. Parametric polymorphism was solved in 1976. None of the things you mentioned are actual problems, they simply do not exist. Those are invented excuses. If Rob seriously still hasn't bothered to read CS papers from 30+ years ago, that is very unfortunate. But it does not mean the problem wasn't solved, it just means he is unaware of the solution.
I find the other approach much better. Use a good language on both the server and the client, using one of the many language_x to javascript compilers.
>I don't think that anyone is expecting a PL research breakthrough to provide some generics panacea
That already happened. In 1976. There is simply no excuse for this disingenuous "oh but go is magic and special and can't do it the same way everyone else can" nonsense. If people want that argument to be taken seriously, then they need to start offering actual specific problems with parametric polymorphism as it would apply to go. Not just saying "we're special".
>I'm primarily a Java and Go coder and think that writing boring code to solve difficult problems requires much more intelligence and artistry than writing complicated code.
That is a false dichotomy, and a particularly dishonest one at that. The options are not write complicated code in a modern language vs write boring code in an obsolete language. Go is bad because it gives the programmer poor tools to write any kind of code to solve difficult problems, boring or otherwise. Basic simple functionality that has been established for decades is being ignored because people insist on pretending that having a good language is somehow a problem and makes code complicated.
>Oh my god I am so tired of seeing comments like this one on the internet.
Me too, please stop making them. The fact that you don't care about owning things you purchase does not imply that the entire concept of owning things you purchase is stupid and nobody should talk about it.
No, you are simply wrong. The problem here has absolutely nothing to do with geoIP. The geoIP lookups are correct. The issue is entirely that people use DNS servers that are no where near them. Don't insist other people are wrong while you are making up nonsense that was already clearly demonstrated wrong in the original article.
What? That is the one thing that stands out as being an obvious "this person has no idea what they are doing" red flag. It doesn't need defended. Having 100 tables is not a problem, in any way. Thinking that having a correct database is bad speaks very poorly for the quality of the developer in question.
Did you miss the part where they tested and confirmed that the IPs in question have better latency to the "right" datacenters, and are still being sent to the wrong ones? GeoIP is not the problem, route53 is.
When you undo the C and C++ merger, how does the list look? They are very different languages, in particularly in that they attract very different people, so it is interesting to know which is actually being used rather than "C/C++".