Vibes is just UX. There's whole careers, teams, and even industries dedicated to it, and yeah it isn't easy because you need aggregate data from people.
Um kind of but not really, it’s a mix of UX and actual measurements of what tasks it can do. Also UX is virtually the same thing: scaled quantitative surveys and preference metrics. It’s again, just benchmarking, and it’s done carefully and with best practices.
This happens, publicly, in the US, all the time. Megacorps like Amazon regularly pit cities and states against each other for what you're calling plain old corruption.
Not all dynamically typed systems are equal. Just like not all statically typed systems are equal. Python and Javascript are a mess. But languages like Elixir aren't just Java without types.
I obviously don't know your specific use case, but in my experience having the database schema reflect throughout a project means its either very small or the design is going to run into problems.
It also sounds like a potential security nightmare. We have a policy of never sending domain objects across the wire so nothing accidentally gets sent. APIs must strictly whitelist data structures.
The way this can work in something like an Elixir or Clojure: you have gradual types in most of the core code, but you translate it just before you hit the view layer (e.g. templates).
The great thing about dynamically typed languages is you don't have to declare a new type for each view. You just select out the data you need and expose it for the view. In Clojure this is as simple as a select-keys.
I actually disagree. Once you remove the cruft and crap of the involved syntax, good OOP design tends to look damn close to FP design. So I flip your point of view - class based OOP is the hack - despite not really using Clojure or FP in my dayjob or hobby projects anymore. Most fun I had with OOP was definitely Common Lisp though.
When it comes to concurrency, what can golang's runtime do that is so special? When I tried it, it seemed like a worse version of Erlang's for people that prefer C style syntax. Depending upon your design space pervasive immutability is a huge boon too and golang doesn't have that but Clojure does - Erlang obviously having that and more.
I agree Golang is a worse version of OTP, no question about it, but if you are not allowed to code in Erlang/Elixir/Gleam (which sadly is 99.9% of the projects on the planet) then Golang is the next best thing.
It has footguns, sure, but with library support and discipline it can get you very far.
To me it's embarrassing that PLs still tout syntax and various other goodies, completely glossing over runtime. I might be missing something. But faux humble statements aside, I feel many others are the ones who miss something -- and that's the fact that doing stuff in parallel is a fact of life for 20+ years now and it's time all popular PL runtimes finally wake up to that fact.
If not, I am simply not considering them. And I am not saying that arrogantly though it sounds that way; there are some PLs that I _really_ liked and was almost heart-broken that I had to abandon them and not work professionally with them. But I have enough experience to know that runtime choice matters, a lot.
For the record, Racket was one of those PLs I abandoned. I know they started working on parallelism some years ago but I had to make a decision next week back then so, Elixir + Golang + Rust it is for me.
> If it was cheaper to replace the car than get it serviced, they would replace it.
This is doing a lot of work but I'm going to go with a charitable interpretation. I seriously doubt that we'll ever hit a state where replacing a 2 ton vehicle is cheaper than repairing it. And if we do, I'll have to re-evaluate my charitable interpretation, because something shady is likely going on.
The crazy thing is people don't even repair things that are cheaper to repair than replace. Our countertop icemaker broke and my wife wanted to throw it out. I fixed it with 20 minutes of time and a $15 motor from Amazon.
I think the broader trend isn't what's cheapest, its what is easiest, even if its more expensive. People in large part have no idea how to repair anything they own. This mass ignorance is leading to some pretty poor market incentives.
>I think the broader trend isn't what's cheapest, its what is easiest, even if its more expensive.
I don't think this is true. If this is the trend you're seeing it's probably because you're sampling through people with relatively high disposable income(or who don't mind endless credit card debt), who can just afford to throw away broken things when it's just a rounding error of their income.
But if you look at lower income people(with sane spending habits and financial literacy) you'll see how they first ask around if something can be repaired before they claw money from their checking account to buy something new.
My local facebook group is full of students asking if someone can fix their macbooks for cheap as they can't afford a new one or what Apple is quoting them, which is close in cost to buying a new one.
My minimum wage gf still had her barely functional Windows 7 notebook up until a year ago because she didn't feel like spending money to buy a new one if I could just keep fixing it.
Some broke people try not to buy new things if they can, but some are broke because they can't stop buying new things.
A lot of it does come down to a cost / benefit analysis where time preference is extremely overweighted due to an abundance of seemingly free credit and, shall we say, a tragic dustbowl famine of available cognitive resources.
Excuse me? Describing people’s motives and reasoning has no bearing on my own. I’ve repaired multiple components on my own vehicle. Your mentality on the other hand is entirely typical of the reason I avoided this cesspool of a website for many years.
Weird. Reading your comment, I had similar adjectives about HN posting.
Learned helplessness (according to Wikipedia) is about being convinced by your environment that you are incompetent. Part of the feedback loop of the culture is not just the helpless and their helplessnes but the factors that teach them that they are.
reply