The GUI apps built with fyne framework are, at best, toy projects. I am not convinced go is a robust solution for building native GUI interfaces.
> Reason 1: Go can do basically anything
That is a weak argument. All languages can do everything (for example, you can build GUI desktop apps in PHP). If omnipotency is the main criteria, then C# or Java are better alternatives than go - you can even build an OS on CLR/JVM.
I have a rather different opinion on OP that it has a needlessly verbose syntax.
Pythonic it is definitely not. Even C# (which is another creation of Anders Hejlsberg, after MS poached him from Borland) has a better, readable and concise syntax.
I used to be a Delphi evangelist in it's glory days. Now I bristle when I read Pascal source code, there's so much unnecessary visual noise. Of course if your brain is habituated enough to parse Pascal code, eventually you will tend to filter out the begin..end's.
Pascal syntax belongs to C family of language.
As regards to Python-like syntax, I think you are referring to the Nim language, whose syntax happens to be similar to that of Pascal.
There are specific differences that set them apart, too. For example, the fact that Pascal has statement separators rather than statement terminators (and using a separator in a terminal position is usually an error, e.g. before "else").
Pascal rather belongs to the Algol family of languages, together with C. Algol-60 is where "begin" and "end" come from.
Ex-Delphi developer (10 years) - still do some maintenance...
The verbosity is an indicator that it does not require a huge cliff of learning to understand the syntax. (It also means the compiler can absolutely fly, which Delphi did.)
I like the conciseness of later language structures, but they all need to be learnt in order to read or write in them.
The only solution to the verbosity of Delphi was to increase your typing speed or use an IDE add-in that provided shortcuts :)
So I suppose my argument is that the syntax is not needlessly verbose. The verbosity helped the speed of compilation by the simplicity of its grammar, and the learnability of the language is quite speedy as a result of fewer grammatical options.
My feeling as well. In my heart I am really happy that Lazarus (and Harbour, the Clipper-compatible compiler) exist, but being rational the days of desktop applications are over.
Python is being run on microcontrollers these days; I actually wrestle with the non-adoption of Python (or Ruby, or Javascript, or Tcl) as 1st-class citizen language for desktop and mobile; it does not make sense for me. Certainly writing desktop/web apps in C++ or Pascal make even less sense.
Perhaps I am forgetting the big number of fellow developers that work on ERP systems and outdated software, for them it is a blessing to have free tools, while in the 90s such a tool could cost $3k.
> My feeling as well. In my heart I am really happy that Lazarus (and Harbour, the Clipper-compatible compiler) exist, but being rational the days of desktop applications are over.
Oh boy, I hadn't heard about Harbour until now; earlier today I was looking at the Wikipedia page for id Tech 5, and it says it uses Clipper so I was really scratching my head wondering how they pulled that off and why. Now I know, thanks for mentioning it. :- )
But looking at other edits from this address it sees like they might just be a vandal; or at least somebody who is very confused about how Wikipedia works.
One of the main points that makes me happy about Pascal syntax compared to some C-family langs like Java is that types are placed AFTER the variable names, making it much easier to scan the left border of the editor for meaningful info.
Happy that recent languages like Go and Kotlin have learned the lesson and are going the Pascal way again.
FWIW, I took over maintenance of an in-house application written in Delpi/ObjectPascal, with practically no prior experience with Pascal (but one fun weekend looking at Ada), and I had almost no problems reading the code that were caused by Pascal's syntax. It might be because the guy initially wrote the application did a good job, but I found the code very easy to read.
I don't really understand the fascination of westerner's about a weirdo through and through...
In a world that epitomizes heinous men like Columbus or Alexander, it comes as no surprise that a racist, kinky pervert like MK Gandhi is hailed as peacemaker...
His `ahimsa` nonsense benefited the British raaj more than the Indian subcontinent. Because of his stubborn refusal to support forceful eviction of the imperial forces, independence had been delayed by a decade. Thousands of young men had been killed. Their blood is on Gandhis hands. Not to mention, during WW2 he sent Indian forces to reinforce the ailing British army.
During the 1899 2nd Anglo-Boer war, Gandhi volunteered for the British army. He preached independence, except for Black people. He expressed his disdain for Black Africans, by frequently referring to them as "Kafirs".
In 1930, he raised Rs 1.32 Crores - a humongous sum in those days (even in present day India that's a substantial amount of money) for the Dalits of India. No records yet exist that a single penny of that fortune had been spent for the betterment of the people. Not very surprising for a failed lawyer, who tried his luck abroad and decided to work as legal counsel for a wealthy Muslim smuggler in South Africa charging hefty fees.
People extol his vow to celibacy... and forget to mention, that he would separate married women from their husbands, and lie with them naked. He'd advise the husbands to take a cold shower whenever they felt aroused, while he was lying naked with their nude wives in the same room. He'd even lie naked with nude teen/pre-teen girls. When in Bengal, used the Bengali Muslims as an excuse to sleep naked with his 18 yr old grand-niece. He was 77 then, arguing that muslims may kill them, they should remain in the state of purity in case death comes. So he forced his grand-niece to sleep naked with him.
Though there's no account of Gandhi ever having sexual relationship with any of these women. Lying naked with nude women was his way to demonstrate his resolve... the "vow of celibacy"... Of course, it should be easy to refrain from heterosexual romp with all the nude girls and ladies lying with him in the same room... someone who was decades later found to be a closet homosexual...
Imagine if Mahatma Gandhi was alive today, and indulged in the weird activities that he did...
Not really, if you consider the time and effort needed to prepare a meal at home. Starting from shopping at a kitchen market, transporting the goods to home, cutting, prepping, the cooking and finally cleaning up afterwards...
Unless you have several hours of free time each day, preparing ones own meal is not something everyone looks forward to...
I'm sorry, but it does cost less, like I can shop and make both the dinner and next days lunch in an hour. Sometimes I make 3-4 portions so I can eat for two days. My hourly rate is less than the difference of home cooked meal and eating out. I don't cook that often, because while I enjoy doing it, I don't always have the time or motivation, but even counting temporal expense, I save money considerably. Several hours each day is either a ridiculous overexaggeration or you're just very inefficient.
That leaves us wondering why economies of scale haven't beaten out your costs? A place like McDonalds should be able to buy food considerably cheaper than you can, hire people at a fraction of the cost of your time to prep for yourself, etc. While I understand why you may not want to eat McDonalds food constantly, from a price perspective you shouldn't be able to compete.
Have you forgotten some of your costs? It's easy to ignore the opportunity cost of owning the means of production, for instance, despite being a substantial cost, especially in high-cost cities. I have calculated in the past that simply having land allocated for the averaged-sized kitchen in SF costs about the same as a meal out at a nice restaurant 365 days a year, every year. That's even before getting into the cost of building the kitchen structure, furnishing it will the tools needed to prepare food, etc.
If you still believe that your methods are cheaper than a restaurant, what prevents it from working at scale to allow restaurants to offer food just as cheaply?
> I don't always have the time
This is an interesting statement. "I don't have time" means that you value doing one activity over another. If cooking isn't your top choice when faced with options, then perhaps you have undervalued your time spent in the kitchen when calculating your costs?
Of course the manufacturing cost is considerably smaller for restaurants, but they charge a significant markup, which is the only reason eating at home costs less. It's funny that you mentioned McDonald's, I shamelessly love it (in moderation, of course), but in my country it's not the dirt cheap option. It's somewhere in the mid range of fast food places. I literally would not be able to afford to eat at McDonald's 365 days a year.
My setup costs are pretty much next to none, I pay a rent for fully furnished apartment with kitchen, pots and pans, tableware and everything included. Actually it would be a shame not to use them, those would be wasted expenses.
My cooking habits are opportunistic, if I'm at home, with no plans, I'll cook a meal and enjoy the process of doing so. A lot of the times I'm simply not home, so I don't even have the opportunity to cook.
Having explored some investment opportunities in the restaurant industry in the past, I don't see the markups being that large. Competition is fierce enough that there isn't a lot of room to go overboard with the margins. Even McDonalds makes the vast majority of their profits from being in the real-estate business[1], rather than the food business.
> Actually it would be a shame not to use them, those would be wasted expenses.
That I agree with, but the cost of the kitchen is still baked into your rent/utilities. You cannot simply ignore the cost because you happen to already be paying it. It is a very real cost that affects how much it costs to cook at home.
> A lot of the times I'm simply not home
Which, I would argue, is also a cost that should be considered as part of cooking at home. Time to get home, cost of travel to get home, giving up the opportunity of whatever else you may be doing, are all costs involved in cooking at home when you are away from home. And it seems that you have found eating out to be the cheaper option under these circumstances.
This is silly. People have home cooked for millennia because it's cheaper than outsourcing it. Although traditionally women were stuck with the task and not compensated for it. In some ways now we're seeing the end of uncompensated domestic labour and people reaching about for ways to replace it - robots? Temporary labour of strangers from the precariat?
Maybe a lot of the traditional home cooking stuff isn't as good as what you'd get from takeout. A subtle form of inflation. For really cheap stuff the early blog posts of Jack Monroe are a good read; https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/oct/02/jack-mo...
Home cooking benefits from amortisation. Cooking more servings is often only a little more labour, up to the size of your kitchen. You don't need to shop daily either.
I do my own cooking and it rarely takes more than half an hour of actual work, plus up to half an hour (longer for weekend roasts) of semi-unattended cooking time.
Do people really need to spend several hours a day cooking? I don't think so. Simpler meals, simpler prep, putting something in the oven and setting a timer. Totally doable in much less "active" time. Maybe people are just not spending enough time at home.
> He wore a vest summer and winter, and never learned to bathe regularly.
I am curious as to why so many geeky/nerdy type guys express disinclination to daily bathing (myself included).
While regular bathing is beneficial to maintaining hygiene and health, too frequent bathing (especially when using cleansing products) can disrupt the skins natural sebum, pH & moisture control mechanism, dislodge the natural bacterial flora which may predispose the person to harmful infections. Many chemical products commonly used during bathing (soaps, shampoos, gels, disinfectants) are known to mess with the human immune & endocrine systems, a few may even be carcinogenic. Afflictions like eczema, asthma etc. are allegedly attributable to a heightened state of "hygiene" among modern humans - the immune system which keeps constant vigil against infections, is rendered "jobless" because the chemical disinfectants have done it's job, eventually attacks the body itself.
Spurred by the aggressive marketing from the personal cleansing products manufacturers, daily bathing has become a cultural phenomena in our society. Prime motivation for daily bathing seems to be grooming these days.
Anecdote does not equal evidence, but I've encountered many geeks who are inclined to hold off having a bath until it becomes necessary. I wonder why that is?
There used to be a FTP client for linux called kevlarftp (it was a OSS clone of the bulletproof ftp client). Dupont lawyers raised copyright issues against the product name. The author promptly gave up and the software was renamed to "kftp"
> Reason 1: Go can do basically anything That is a weak argument. All languages can do everything (for example, you can build GUI desktop apps in PHP). If omnipotency is the main criteria, then C# or Java are better alternatives than go - you can even build an OS on CLR/JVM.