It was a little disappointing to me given there were TurboAssembler, Turbo C, Turbo Pascal, Turbo Basic, and Turbo Prolog and that Borland had a trademark for Turbo Lisp that I don't think I ever saw an available version of that.
Is it software having this effect or management over software products? I don't see many academic or hobby software projects constantly changing what's important to them on a whim. It can be seen all the time in the software industry though.
Yet UPS still delivers packages better than FedEx.
The most reliable cars are made by Toyota, Subaru, and Honda in that order. Subaru is unionized. Toyota and Honda are not in the US, but have some union membership among employees in Japan. The two also acknowledge every UAW contract and adjust their pay and benefits at US plants after pretty much every new one is ratified.
Do you own a watch that's higher quality than Rolex? Guess who's unionized.
Would you say Walmart is high quality than Costco? Costco's the one that's unionized.
It's a badly worded caption. The leftmost image is a wolf skull. To the right of that, in the middle, is the thylacine skull. The rightmost one is a fox skull.
> "There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."
Do you know the source of that quote and the context? It was Frank Wilhoit explaining the core of the problem with conservatism. He wrote it when proposing anti-conservatism. To quote it as a general rule of life presumes that conservatism is the only way humans can organize a society.
Yes I do and perhaps instead of making that presumption you could simply understand conservatives to be those who perceive themselves to be part of that higher social class (or at least want to).
I'm not a doctor or biologist, but remember that bacteria is a far simpler organism with a much shorter individual lifespan than a human. Depending on the species and their environment, they might divide every 12 minutes or every 24 hours. A new human generation will be more 15 to 35 years. Their reproduction is also simpler. Genes are inherited or mutated mostly at the time of reproduction. Selection is mostly therefore over the course of generations.
These things together mean their microevolution is on a different timescale than ours.
My new pest control folks sold me partly by showing customer satisfaction numbers from independent third-party review sites. The sales guy made the point that their customer satisfaction had stayed high after their PE buyout, but my old service had gone downhill since their PE buyout.
This sounds like he's discounting Lisp, Scheme, OCaml, and Haskell in favor of something that's more of a safer, fresher take on the C language for his target group. The real competition for a language like Go these days are Rust, Zig, maybe D or Swift. Python, Fortran, JS, TypeScript, PHP, Julia, and such are mostly used in other niches. Common Lisp, Scheme, Haskell, OCaml, Objective Pascal, Ada, and several more are capable languages but don't benefit as much from the network effects of C-family syntax.
Rust development was already in the air a bit at the time that Go made its debut. And in a shape at the time that was arguably more Go-shaped than what it became (did not have borrow checker yet, and had a managed runtime and GC option as well I think).
I personally think hubris led to Pike not working with others in the industry and Go bears the stamps of some very unfortunate idiosyncratic decisions as a result. The error handling in particular is awful. Refusal to admit parameterized types (until forced to, later) another.
I like to imagine an alternate reality where Google and Mozilla had birthed something together halfway between Go and Rust. I think the world really still needs something like this for server development; parametrized types, ML-influenced type system, proper strictly typed error handling and pattern machine like Rust / ML; native code production like both; but with GC and fast compilation and a good powerful standard library like Go.
Closest to this out there might be OCaml, I dunno. Maybe Swift.
> Rust development was already in the air a bit at the time that Go made its debut.
Go's debut was in 2009 (1.0 a few years later, but you could have used it not long after its announcement at the end of 2009). Rust's first public release was in 2012. It's very unlikely that early, pre-public release Rust could have had any significant real or hypothetical influence on Go.
Using explicitly checked errors instead of exceptions was a considered design choice and is well explained in the Go literature. It may not be to everyone's taste, but there are reasons for it. One of those reasons is how often very normal flow control is shoehorned into exceptions when they are available.
reply