There is no silver bullet in coding or any other form of engineering, and even less so in learning it. You need talent, dedication, motivation stemming from the subject (not the potential paycheck) and a lot of time.
This was done before with JavaApplets. They mostly failed (and often cause significant problems were still used), but web-assembly is the only way to get good performance for non business-logic things.
And as soon as you do any heavy lifting, these advantages go away because you need to embed C. The promises of Rust are mostly lies because its proponents do not understand the problem they are trying to solve. There is a reason C is still around and going strong after all this time. The reason is that all attempts at replacing it for the roles where it shines have failed, because they made things worse.
Another nice thing is that C makes dumb coders write obviously broken code. That alone makes it worth using it.
Of course, criticizing the CoC or suggesting it may actually be harmful or not needed is heresy and must be punished with the harshest reaction possible. That one is self-evident and hence does not need to be stated explicitly in the CoC.
Of course, if female contributors are regarded as much more valuable than male ones, it makes perfect sense (and becomes a moral abomination), but unless that is the case, this makes no sense.
It is how the Inquisition worked: Everyone has sinned to some degree. In order to establish power, crucify some sinners publicly, and the rest will fall in line, assuring the dominance of the right way to think. Of course, if anybody dares to suggest that the Inquisition may be wrong, crucify them first.
This is a classical, evil, medieval power concentration strategy.
The "Men't Rights Activist" is pure slander. Unfortunately, because the press does not check facts anymore, such dishonorable tactics work. Nicely shows the nature of the people at work here though. Truth is not a consideration for them, just excluding somebody that dares suggest they may be doing something wrong. The anti-discourse, anti-rational stance displayed by SJWs of all colors.
And that is pretty much it. They try with all their might to gloss over the fact they they are the problem here because their codes of conduct discriminate and exclude people.
This is a good example. They fracture communities, exclude everybody whose world-view they do not like, suppress opinions, perform inquisitions into private, non-criminal activities and generally place PC far above performance and technological skill. It is a reasonable assumption that node.js at the very least got much weaker due to a non-technical issue. These are exactly the people that made the dark ages dark. And they seem to want that state back.
Unfortunately, that ability will be a major future factor in whether a FOSS project can survive. May mean that technologically inferior projects make it because they keep the SJWs out successfully.
Most people do not understand risk and risk management as done in professional engineering. These people all have no formal EE training and some apparently have no formal training at all. Hence they probably feel pretty smart for "showing the professionals how it is done" and are completely unaware and would not understand anyways why the actual experts go to all that trouble needed to make this safe. They will find out by repeating the history they are unaware of.
If these people were doing that, fine. They are not. They put these battery packs right in their homes. They are amateurs with no idea of risk management or statistics and often only passing EE skills.
I have to say I found it boring. From the Amazon-reviews, about 10% or so of the readers agree with me, but something like 80% found it pretty good. Maybe it really is me.
Pure generalists can, and often are badly off in what they think is going on in a field. I see that all the time. What you actually need is a combination of being a generalist with being a real expert in one or several areas. Then you can do much better plausibility-checking.
But apparently, we are now preparing for a population that becomes illiterate. Sure, expiry dates have some leeway, but people figure these out. Also, sensors can only tell when it is already bad and standard human sensors do a pretty good job of that as well.
Sounds like yet another product that nobody needs and that will just serve to create more garbage.
To stay in IT: it is worth gold when trouble shooting (have you seen those tickets that keep being pushed around in the organization because nobody knows what the problem really is?)
At one large customer, a lot of those seem to end up with me. Funnily enough, I do not have budget for dealing with them and have to ask for an exception every time. But I have solved quite a few of them with an hour or two when they were being debugged for days or weeks before. Sometimes, all it takes is a firm "this _is_ an application problem". In particular, web-application people do not seem to know any of the basics anymore and time and budget pressure does the rest.
The problem with "polymaths" is that their knowledge is too shallow to be of any real worth these days. It may be actively harmful to make decisions based on this type of knowledge.
But, as it turns out, experts at the top of their game have to have a lot of surrounding knowledge and will need to be experts in more than one subject area. They also will need to be able to acquire new knowledge fast and accurately. In a sense, polymaths have been replaced by "meta-experts" that can become experts in most topics in several larger areas on demand.
It is not. Sure, humans get a word wrong, but they will only very rarely mangle the meaning. Machine transcription, on the other hand, will often get meaning wrong and that is a serious problem.
The only thing this shows is use of an unsuitable (in fact, utterly stupid) metric for marketing purposes.
Slashdot Mirror
Still completely relevant: http://norvig.com/21-days.html
Also applies to being taught the first few years.
There is no silver bullet in coding or any other form of engineering, and even less so in learning it. You need talent, dedication, motivation stemming from the subject (not the potential paycheck) and a lot of time.
Apart from being stupid, they seem to be nonsense as well...
This was done before with JavaApplets. They mostly failed (and often cause significant problems were still used), but web-assembly is the only way to get good performance for non business-logic things.
And as soon as you do any heavy lifting, these advantages go away because you need to embed C. The promises of Rust are mostly lies because its proponents do not understand the problem they are trying to solve. There is a reason C is still around and going strong after all this time. The reason is that all attempts at replacing it for the roles where it shines have failed, because they made things worse.
Another nice thing is that C makes dumb coders write obviously broken code. That alone makes it worth using it.
You know, -Wall already gives you much of this with GCC. You need to use it though.
Very much this.
Lets hope web-assembly makes it and languages for actual coders will become available in web-coding.
Rust may have some merit, but the community is utterly toxic. Sane people stay away from it.
Of course, criticizing the CoC or suggesting it may actually be harmful or not needed is heresy and must be punished with the harshest reaction possible. That one is self-evident and hence does not need to be stated explicitly in the CoC.
And this does not drive away contributors?
Of course, if female contributors are regarded as much more valuable than male ones, it makes perfect sense (and becomes a moral abomination), but unless that is the case, this makes no sense.
It is how the Inquisition worked: Everyone has sinned to some degree. In order to establish power, crucify some sinners publicly, and the rest will fall in line, assuring the dominance of the right way to think. Of course, if anybody dares to suggest that the Inquisition may be wrong, crucify them first.
This is a classical, evil, medieval power concentration strategy.
The "Men't Rights Activist" is pure slander. Unfortunately, because the press does not check facts anymore, such dishonorable tactics work. Nicely shows the nature of the people at work here though. Truth is not a consideration for them, just excluding somebody that dares suggest they may be doing something wrong. The anti-discourse, anti-rational stance displayed by SJWs of all colors.
And that is pretty much it. They try with all their might to gloss over the fact they they are the problem here because their codes of conduct discriminate and exclude people.
This is a good example. They fracture communities, exclude everybody whose world-view they do not like, suppress opinions, perform inquisitions into private, non-criminal activities and generally place PC far above performance and technological skill. It is a reasonable assumption that node.js at the very least got much weaker due to a non-technical issue. These are exactly the people that made the dark ages dark. And they seem to want that state back.
At least for anything even remotely identifying people. IP addresses, for example, fall under this. It always has to be opt-in.
Unfortunately, that ability will be a major future factor in whether a FOSS project can survive. May mean that technologically inferior projects make it because they keep the SJWs out successfully.
Most hobbyists I spoke to said they don't keep their powerwalls inside their homes for safety reasons or to comply with local regulations.
And then you look at the pictures in the article...
Most people do not understand risk and risk management as done in professional engineering. These people all have no formal EE training and some apparently have no formal training at all. Hence they probably feel pretty smart for "showing the professionals how it is done" and are completely unaware and would not understand anyways why the actual experts go to all that trouble needed to make this safe. They will find out by repeating the history they are unaware of.
If these people were doing that, fine. They are not. They put these battery packs right in their homes.
They are amateurs with no idea of risk management or statistics and often only passing EE skills.
I have to say I found it boring. From the Amazon-reviews, about 10% or so of the readers agree with me, but something like 80% found it pretty good. Maybe it really is me.
Pure generalists can, and often are badly off in what they think is going on in a field. I see that all the time. What you actually need is a combination of being a generalist with being a real expert in one or several areas. Then you can do much better plausibility-checking.
Or did anybody else find "The Three-Body Problem" pretty much unreadable? Maybe I just have the wrong cultural background to understand it.
But apparently, we are now preparing for a population that becomes illiterate. Sure, expiry dates have some leeway, but people figure these out. Also, sensors can only tell when it is already bad and standard human sensors do a pretty good job of that as well.
Sounds like yet another product that nobody needs and that will just serve to create more garbage.
To stay in IT: it is worth gold when trouble shooting (have you seen those tickets that keep being pushed around in the organization because nobody knows what the problem really is?)
At one large customer, a lot of those seem to end up with me. Funnily enough, I do not have budget for dealing with them and have to ask for an exception every time. But I have solved quite a few of them with an hour or two when they were being debugged for days or weeks before. Sometimes, all it takes is a firm "this _is_ an application problem". In particular, web-application people do not seem to know any of the basics anymore and time and budget pressure does the rest.
The problem with "polymaths" is that their knowledge is too shallow to be of any real worth these days. It may be actively harmful to make decisions based on this type of knowledge.
But, as it turns out, experts at the top of their game have to have a lot of surrounding knowledge and will need to be experts in more than one subject area. They also will need to be able to acquire new knowledge fast and accurately. In a sense, polymaths have been replaced by "meta-experts" that can become experts in most topics in several larger areas on demand.
It is not. Sure, humans get a word wrong, but they will only very rarely mangle the meaning. Machine transcription, on the other hand, will often get meaning wrong and that is a serious problem.
The only thing this shows is use of an unsuitable (in fact, utterly stupid) metric for marketing purposes.