>The difference is that our younger selves were maybe more optimistic and naive and probably would have just produced a new mess for the next one to scratch his/her head about.
I haven't read the book, but that paragraph makes me think in all the artists that never did anything interesting, but were artists. It makes me think in all the artists that believed strongly that their work, and indeed their existence, was of the utmost importance, even if it wasn't.
This is not a rant, you need to believe in yourself to do art, you need to believe that your work is of the most upmost importance, otherwise you wouldn't be able to give in to it.
The problem is that, from the outside, that is not necessarily true, and often isn't.
I actually agree with the premise, I do need solitude to be creative. I don´t want to feel lonely, but I need to feel that my mind will not be perturbed at unexpected times, for unwelcome reasons. I just want to emphasize that calling ourselves artists is not making us any favors.
What does it matter if it's true? Many artists won't even know if it was true or not, because, for the many of the most revolutionary ones, the recognition only comes many years after their death. For others, it may never come, due to confluence of irrelevant factors (let's say they were writing in a very niche language). If the artist believe in what they're doing, whether or not people recognize it is secondary and not something they should worry about too much.
Obviously not, see my other comment. Anecdotal evidence is part of the evidence, it doesn't allow you to claim part of the explanation is your anecdotal evidence.
> It may not make sense right now, but you may spend the next decade or so chasing money to get to a point of contentment only to realize that you’re chasing after money because you think it’s going to give you peace. The turn is when you figure out money doesn’t give you peace.
it does give me peace, it relaxes me to know my son will have food and shelter. That we'll be able to pay for learning resources and fun things. It helps to know that, if things get a bit rough, we will have some money to hold on until things get better.
It relaxes me to know that if any of us get sick, we'll be able to pay the bills... hopefully.
>Nothing you point out gets even close, in my mind, to stuff like null pointers or untyped code. So I wonder what languages you have in mind that require less patience.
You two are talking about two different things:
- The parent is talking about the ecosystem, how menial tasks have tooling in "less interesting" languages
- You are talking about the language itself
I would venture to guess that the parent would agree with you, if talking about the language in a vacuum.
An interesting competition would be to develop a complex product, without external dependencies.
My sad guess is that languages that are filled with escape hatches, like Java, Javascript, or python, would defeat more strict languages.
It's a sad guess, because I actually do prefer the Haskell way.
most likely Putin and his cronies are too isolated from reality, i.e. the information they receive is filtered/doctored to fit whatever they expect. Not dissimilar to the kings of old, or Dictators like Hitler, or Fidel
> When The College Board, the company who administers Advanced Placement (AP) courses and the SAT test to thousands of future college applicants each year, began developing the AP Computer Science Principles (AP CSP) course(...)The data also showed that students who took AP CSP were over three times as likely to major in computer science when they advanced to college. They are also twice as likely to enroll for AP CSA, a course that focuses on programming languages. Those increases were seen across all desired demographics, including first generation college students.
> I used to be excited by programming language features instead of what problem I was actually trying to solve with programming. I'd spend hours condensing 10 lines of perfectly working code into 1 line of the most concise text possible (...) they should be impressed by what the program does for them, not what language features you used to implement it.
Interestingly, what made me go through similar evolution was the very language in which I was trying to do all those things, namely Scala. After a few years of trying to be "smart", I realized that the problem was usually bigger than the language.
So perhaps, it wasn't Go, nor Scala, who helped us in our realization, but life and experience?
Our individual lives and experiences don't make the package manager better, though. Rather, Go's package manager (and its overall philosophy more generally) is good because Go was developed by people who had a lot of "life and experience". And it seems intuitive to me that someone who uses a language with a strong, mature philosophy would influence even more junior users.
I believe he has a point. Go was from day one trying to walk a different path. It was wisely dumb, pragmatic, simple (even though yeah verbose on many fronts). It changes your focus on external value rather than internal value.
He did quit, there should not be shame in quitting, but he did quit. Others have the same difficulties as him, they don't quit, nor they achieved anything, that is the risk. Now he makes money in Wall Street. By his standards, he hasn't achieve anything yet, nor will ever, other than procuring for his family, which is not a small thing! But his dreams were about "The Grail", if they still are, then he quit. He quit a path that would most likely left him in the dust, but that it was the only path that could have possibly taken him to "The Grail", the current path won't take him anywhere near it. So unless he is able to change the narrative of his own life, he will forever be a failure, independently of how much money he can make in the trading floor.
I agree 100% but his path to the grail was stifled where he was.
He made the right decision to escape but maybe he would have been better off living like Grigori Perelman and devoting himself mind body and soul to the grail. That’s what it takes, he should have left as soon as he felt the misalignment with the grail and the toy models he was working on as he was involved in fruitless make work.
> I'm the kind of guy that likes to re-run his code continually to see if it validates to what I expect it to be doing. In Rust, this kind of workflow just doesn't work at all.
Interestingly, my case is the exact opposite. When I am coding in Typescript or Python I'm out of place, since I got used to first write the types to make sure everything is aligned, _and then_, start writing logic...
Even in Typescript this workflow is not easy to do, since its compiler is nowhere as powerful.
This needs to be highlighted!