This is not a writeup of "Ada is better than everything else". The author is explaining how Ada achieved safety/reliability goals that your favorite language independently evolved much later on. That is why they kept bringing up year-of-arrival for comparison.
Examples would be a nice bonus but I think the author eschewed such because they weren't interested in writing a tutorial. They had a very specific point to make and stuck to it, resulting in a very informative but concise article that reads well because of its highly disciplined authorship.
How about "Working with AI just feels like having a team of junior employees who are completely unscrupulous, sychophantic and sometimes profoundly stupid psychopathic liars"?
That you can be utterly awful to and they won't quit or feel sick. They'll never show up to work hung over or have a relative that needs surgery so they need an advance in pay and also they're never emotional because their partner of seven years broke up with them and their dog and cat and pet rabbit died. They'll never go to HR because you sexually harassed them, they'll work on your schedule and are available, in your house in your bed, at 4 am when inspiration hits so you pull out your laptop.
Am amused that someone feels compelled to justify writing a db in C#. Such conscientiousness!
I'm not sure authors of Cassandra, ElasticSearch, MongoDB (and more...?) ever had the slightest twinge of uncertainty about whether a managed memory env would cause far more problems than it fixed, even with less native tooling than in C#. Java bros DGAF
I really like the idea of implementing the std lib separate from the language. I think that would be a huge blessing for Java, Go and others, ideally allowing faster iteration on most things given that we usually don't need a reinvention of the compiler/runtime just to make a better library.
> I really like the idea of implementing the std lib separate from the language. I think that would be a huge blessing for [...] Go
Go's stdlib is separate from the language. The language spec doesn't specify a standard library at all. It also doesn't have just one stdlib. tinygo's stdlib isn't the same as gc's, for example.
I will note that gc's standard library also isn't written in Go. It is written in a superset with a 'private' language on top that is tied to the gc compiler to support low-level functions that Go doesn't have constructs for. So separating the standard library from the compiler wouldn't really work. No other Go compiler would be able to make sense of it. go1 promise aside, the higher-level packages that are pure Go could be hoisted completely out of the stdlib, granted.
As long as you can include only the parts that you need.
In Java, the "stdlib" that comes with the JRE, like all the java.* classes, counts 0 towards the size of your particular program but everyone has to have the whole JRE installed to run anything. Whereas if you pull in a (maven) dependency, you get the entirety of the dependency tree in your project (or "uberjar" if you package it that way).
Then we could decide on which of java.util.collections, apache commons-collections, google guava etc. become "standard" ...
I have a 2009 Citroen and the battery is secured with a bolt that is under the battery compartment and to access it you need to go under the car with a very long wrench, who engineered it is a psycho
Since Dante wrote _The Inferno_, there has been a circle in Hell added where car designers are endlessly changing the spark plugs on AMC Javelins, bleeding brakes on Ford Escorts, and similar maintenance tasks which the design made more difficult than is reasonable.
I had a 2004 Citroen, which needed the front sidelight bulb replacing, after investigating for 20 minutes, decided to ask the garage how much it would cost next time it was in.
I left my Citroen to my mom, and my stepfather has calculated that a light bulb costs 3€, having the light bulb mounted by the mechanic costs 5€ ( including the bulb ), so to save up 2€ he decided ( with good cause ) that he will never replace the bulb himself cause it's extremely infuriating.
I did manage to replace those bulbs myself, and it's ridiculous, it has some sort of spring to hold it in place that is extremely hard to open with your fingers, and even harder to close. And on top of that you can't even see it, you have to take first pictures with your phone, understand how it works and then go entirely by tactic feedback
In this case, I couldn't see how to get at the bulb without either losing lots of skin or dismantling half the front end of the car - so I was happy to pay the half hour rate they charged. I believe they went in from below the car with something to reach it and mirrors.
Define "modern". I have a 2017 Civic and I've had to replace the battery a couple of times. There's a holding bar that needs to be removed before the battery can be taken out, but other than that the only real problem is the weight of the thing.
In general it looks like these kinds of changes are trying to make it harder for people to do this kind of basic maintenance themselves. Force you to go to the dealer.
I recommend to never go to the dealer, unless you're going there for a warranty or recall repair. A local repair shop is always the better option. And if you don't know of a trustworthy local shop, take it to the dealer for an estimate, and then you know if the local shops are bullshitting you (they should come in way under dealer prices).
While increasing dealer revenue is a plausible goal, it also seems plausible that reducing production cost could cause awkward maintenance. It is even plausible that only the bill of materials would be considered, though the feedback loop for increasing assembly cost is much tighter and less noisy that the loop of end-user dissatisfaction with maintenance issues.
Even within an organization, creating externalities from one department's perspective seems common enough.
Even if a decision maker is aware of the possibility of externalities and cares about a broader constituency (temporal or "spatial"), evaluating actual costs is an expense as is justifying that investigation expense and any mitigation/avoidance expenses to others in the decision web.
> This meant I could start the computer, log in, potentially start and use several applications and only then turn on the screen.
I mean... well... responsiveness matters to me too, and I am impressed by such inspired productivity, but... I'm also confused. Why not turn on the screen - the monitor, right?
Now thinking about how gui lag might impact the sight-impaired, tangential as that is...
It was meant as an example, not a productivity tip ;-)
Anyway the real point is that it's just easier to use something if you don't need constant visual feedback. Being able to use something blind is more than just an accessibility issue it is just better in general.
They are trumpist, because Trump is highly narcissistic and disgusted by _weakness_ in others. They are elitist Nietzschean social darwinists at heart and believe IQ should determine social status.
The populism stuff doesn't mean "We're protecting the little guy from elites who conspire against him." It means "We're protecting ourselves from other elites who conspire against us - but the little guy will still be better off with us as the authoritarian elite."
The most consistent answer I see here, in the article, and in people I've talked to is: Taking responsibility. It becomes a moral question. I think if you want to be seen as an adult - as many kids desperately hope to do - responsibility is the most reliable way to get that perception from others, especially from actual adults. The popular alternative of pursuing vice is not going to be so effective.
Quite a few folks will push back and insist that such an assessment is unfair, which is fine, if the world agrees with you, or if you just don't care.
edit - sorry, it is in fact adjusted, text is kinda hard to see