u/ctbel

Do you know what kind of paper size their using for those sketches?

My guess would be A2, that is, if they work with the European nomenclature.

It's basically 4 American Letter pages glued together

I've become quite good at that game, but it still sucks.

Do you perhaps have any stories to share? This sounds very interesting.

The lemonade is the "service that lets users find the cheapest seller", which is actually what amazon and some other big companies do. See my other post, I believe you might be confused as to why they are actually fined. You can't actually buy the same premium placing if it's what I think it is.

I only replied to the fact that you used those prices to prove your point, when in fact, if they proved anything, it was the opposite. You should really read the "moving the Goalposts" page that I linked.

And I replied to another comment of yours and coincidentally mentioned the entire browser debacle. You're absolutely right that this is very questionable.

Finally, in terms of Google Shopping, do you know what the actual problem is? I'm unsure but I believe that the problem is not the ad boxes, but the "Shop for telescope on Google" link above them. It links to product-specific Google Shopping page. That's basically the same as what amazon and a couple of other major companies do. Companies that pay to have their ad in the box beneath it.

That comparison almost perfectly describes the situation of Microsoft, which was forced to let the user select between internet explorer, Chrome and other alternatives. I must admit that I find this a very borderline case, and if it were up to me, without having read the verdict or researching the browser market history, I would probably have decided otherwise.

The current situation is more like this, though;

Google became the dominant market leader in lemonade stands by selling premium lemonades from suppliers. Once they have conquered 90% of the lemonade stand market, they decide to create their own lemonade product line and turn their generic lemonade stand into the equivalent of an Apple Store for their brand. The EU thinks this is unacceptable because the other lemonade manufacturers now have a massive economical disadvantage because their competitor is leader in another market and uses that against them.

Yes the prices are lower if you exclude VAT.

What's your point? What are you trying to argue?

Your initial argument was that antitrust laws actually lead to higher prices. I pointed out that the prices you used as evidence are actually lower in the area where those antitrust laws apply. Next thing I know, you're arguing that sales tax makes items more expensive. No shit, but you're moving the goal posts.

On American Amazon it costs $375.90 = 315.55 euro.

On German Amazon it costs 355.99 euro.

By some reason, in EU it costs 12% more expensive. So much for a customer benefit?

Well there's about 20% sales tax that is included in the price on German Amazon. In the US the sales tax isn't included in the price. This depends on each individual state and might actually be lower, but that's irrelevant. In other words, it's cheaper in the EU.

It's not a standard contract then because it's binding until 2039 and it was signed probably around 1995.

Don't you mean Bigbootyhose?

Do you expect those EU agencies to continue paying rent for the next 20 years, in this case over £300 million?

Have to correct that one. The bends is decompression sickness, loosing pressure would cause the opposite, altitude sickness.

The dictionary definition for decompression is "reduction in air pressure."

I was confused at first because I associate bends with returning to ground-level. But it's not as if gas stops expanding at ground-level pressure and to make matters worse, your body is probably completely habituated to ground-level gasses.

What subreddits would you recommend?

Then you will like the actual name of the bakery (from the article);

You Know Nothing John Dough

FYI I didn't downvote you.

That doesn't really match with your original comment; you do say that complexity will be involved, but you don't specify how, which is pretty significant.

Yes I should have communicated better.

which is pretty significant.

What?

I'd be curious to know what exactly about the compiler itself would make it require a rewrite.

Go ships with a lot of built-in developer tools and the compiler can't be seen in isolation from those tools. It's possible that they impose requirements on the compiler that can't be met with the current architecture without significantly impacting performance and stability. Sure the lexer won't be a problem, but that's as far as my knowledge goes.

I was aware of the fork but can't seem to find the repo. Since you mentioned it, perhaps you could point me in the right direction? Would be interesting to see what works and what doesn't.

Perhaps. However, your assumption that the article actually needs to be read as far as this debate is concerned is false, and using my lack of reading it as an argument is fairly weak to be honest, because what I said to you had absolutely zero intent of being correlated with the article itself. Your interpretation of it being that way is at most coincidence, but it isn't my fault.

Fair enough.

I still think it's a flawed argument. Those who work on Go have a considerable amount of resources that exist far beyond just a few academic oldies sitting around with limited funding - this is Google we're talking about, after all

My argument is that those who actually work on Go might not feel that generics are sufficiently beneficial for them to actually implement and maintain them, which would be a valid justification for them not to add generics.

You're saying that this argument is flawed, but it's actually the nil-hypothesis from both a legal and an economical perspective.

The main difference between the few academic oldies, and Google, is that Google is a publicly traded for-profit company. A publicly traded for-profit company shouldn't spend money on things that don't ultimately contribute to it's profit. This includes charitable donations.

Also, implying Google should foot the bill simply because they have a lot of resources is lotter-winner-faux-friend kind of justification.

Separate teams have existed in the past for this kind of rewrite: you have developers who continue to maintain the stable branch, and developers who go off and do whatever is necessary to produce a working version of the compiler with Generics support.

Of course it's possible to add generics, but why should Google be the one to foot the bill?

This makes absolutely no sense, considering that feature addition like Generics can be implemented in such a way that it doesn't break backward compatibility.

What about the reflect package? What about all of the third-party tooling?

Actually it doesn't, because I'm fully aware of my lack of entitlement: I really don't care whether or not Go has generics, because I'm not a Go programmer.

I never said you were entitled, I merely pointed out that your argument came from a place of entitlement.

That said, my whole point is based on the premise that Generics being implemented as an official language feature are what's important. The reason for this is because it's guaranteed support and maintenance by more than just one person in the future,

Exactly.

and that support is coming straight from the horse's mouth and not some ragtag group of coders who don't have time to commit 40+ hours a week towards Go in general.

Exactly.

mhhmfh

LPT: learn to communicate

I'm not sure if you meant to reply (all of that) to my comment?

I really hate Dave's viewpoint on a lot of this kind of stuff. I feel like he comes off arrogant without proper backing.

That's also what I took away from the article. The whole "mainstream programmers" talk felt very condescending for some reason, perhaps because I consider myself one. Maybe I'm imagining things, and I didn't want to actually say it, but it's definitely the reason for my snarky misquote.

You are probably right that it doesn't necessarily make the compiler significantly more complex, but from what I've heard it would require an entire rewrite of the compiler, and would require a lot of changes to the tooling and even standard library. Cheney worries in his article that the transition to a Go with generics risks fracturing the community.

You also seem to be under the impression that I'm oblivious to the "cargo cult-tier justification" in the article. Perhaps if you actually read the article, you might have realized that the main pro-generics argument could also apply to weakly typed languages, and you might have noticed my sarcasm when I misquoted the original article.

My point is that those who actually work on Go might not feel that generics are sufficiently beneficial for them to actually implement and maintain them. And that would be a valid justification for them not to implement them. Claiming otherwise just reeks of entitlement because you're free to implement it yourself.

Currently I use visual code with the fountain extension and with a self-made extension that shows the scene headings in tree-view. It's simple, but it's nice.

How do you go about your branching in git?

It's obvious the entire article tries to justify not adding generics. The main pro-generics argument applies equally to weakly typed languages. Why else do you think I replaced "Go" with "Javascript" in my quote?

It's not that hard, bro. You just substitute symbols.

Then why don't you do that, and maintain the code base indefinitely. People will love you for it. You don't have time? Then why don't you pay others to do it for you?

Your commander just doesn't want to admit that his decision was retarded.

Who is my commander? What decision are you talking about?

Hard is also significantly more expensive, that's what I meant, who's going to pay for development time and maintenance?

So my first answer is: Javascript should have some form of generics because it is a mainstream, imperative, block scoped language and it is expected these days.

I love how this article does try to be objective and include valid arguments for both sides.

I am not one of the language designers, only an exuberant fan (...) This isn’t simply a case of saying “nope, sorry, no generics for Go 2.0, maybe in another 5 years”, but a more fundamental statement that they are not something that will be implemented in Go because WE believe there is a better way to solve the underlying problem.

Who's we?

I can't build a compiler myself, but I can imagine that adding generics to the language will make the compiler a lot more complex to implement. That's a proper reason not to implement them. There's no other justification needed.

No need to apologize mate :)

Good job but I think you meant

mySet.Add("1") // compile error

Same, it's confusing because depending on the usage it might mean "slim to none", but in this context I'd say it unfortunately means "none".