Yes, programming languages are designed for a purpose and importantly for a concrete system. Erlang is the way it is because it was designed for Ericsson's phone network. C is the way it is because it was designed for the PDP-11. Logo is the way it is because is was designed for young children. Go is they way it is because it was designed by Google for Googlers.
You can't design an abstractly "perfect" programming language without any context. Which is why the author I think focuses on "perfectable", as in the language can be made perfect for your purpose but it's not going to be one size fits all.
No, I realize that. It doesn't stop me from having my "perfect language wishlist". The author calling out "perfectable" is what got me thinking. What language would I choose if I were able to "perfect" it just a bit more?
One thing I like about TypeScript is that there's tooling for "quickly strip out the types and give me something I can run; I don't care if it's correct". You can run the (slower) type checker concurrently with that (or whenever it's convenient to do so), but type-checking doesn't necessarily block you from being able to play with runtime stuff.
I understand that this workflow can't be realized in languages whose runtime semantics are derived from type-level stuff, and while that can be quite convenient I'm personally willing to give it up to unlock the aforementioned workflow.
"Isn't the compile speed of Go so good because it's type system is much simpler?"
That, and forgoing fancy compile-time optimization steps which can get arbitrarily expensive. You can recover some of this with profile-guided optimization, but only some and my best guess based on the numbers is that it's not much compared to a more full (but much more expensive) suite of compile-time optimizations.
> Point is that this tactic works only when the downtown is so established and so dense that people are going to go anyway even if parking is hard, like Manhattan.
Or the facilitating of cars has now made it more unattractive for people to go and hangout there even if it is easier to drive to.
I didn't take the parent comment to be dismissive or false advertising or that the parent commenter is even that upset about anything. It's just constructive criticism. The original comment says they will "probably read it"! I think we should all be more generous of each others comments.
Of course the book can't talk about everything but it claims to be maintenance of everything, and in general, there is a tendency to overlook the role and impact of marginalised communities in the histories. It's fine that the author hasn't done it, it's their book, but it's important to mention here because it could help the author go deeper into their point. Do you not think exploring those topics would be interesting in this book given the blurb? I certainly think it's an interesting point.
> No mention that for millenia we were mending our clothes, cleaning our houses, maintaining our food systems.
The omissions that the parent comment mentioned aren't arbitrary by the definition that we have been doing them for thousands of year.
You probably recognise the woman on the left, the PM of Denmark.
You may not recognise the dude on the right, but he comes from a country that gave us the motto which vocally expresses the solidarity he is physically expressing in the pic: "all for one, and one for all"
It’s definitely a bit annoying and verbose in Java but I think creating an interface to support testing is a net positive. That interface is the specification of what that concrete class requires it’s dependencies to do.
I think all the dependencies of a class should define behaviour not implementation so it’s not tightly coupled and can be modified in the future. If you have a class that injects LookUpService, why not put an interface LookUpper in front of it? It’s a layer of indirection but we have IDEs now and reading the interface should be easier or at least provide context.
The idea that LLMs are amazing at comprehension but we are expected to read original documents seems contradictory to me? I’m also wary of using them as editors and losing the writers voice as that feels heavily prompt dependent and whether or not the writer does a final pass without any LLM. Asking someone else to re-write is losing your voice if you don’t have an opinion on how the re-write turns out
I never gelled with how SQLC needs to know about your schema via the schema file. I'm used to flyway where you can update the schema as long as it's versioned correctly such that running all the sets of flyways will produce the same db schema.
I referred go-jet since it introspects the database for it's code generation instead.
The way I prefer to use sqlc is in combination with a schema migration framework like goose. It actually is able to read the migration files and infer the schema directly without needing an actual database. This seems to work well in production.
