This reminds me of the "three tribes of programming: mathematical poetry, machine hackery, and business value". I think each SWE gets similar but different feelings of satisfaction. I knew a coworker who cared about the result, and little about the code he wrote. This was foreign to me when I saw it, as I was and still am definitely in the love for "math poetry" camp when it's possible.
GPLv3-or-later is currently almost the same as GPLv3-only at the moment given there is no GPLv4.
The reason why it's not possible to include GPLv3-only code in a GPLv3-or-later codebase is that the latter is more permissive, allowing the FSF to release an updated version of the GPL.
They won't make GPLv4 any less copyleft and more permissive than GPLv3, if they ever do make one. At worst, the GPLv4 will cause some commercial user of the code to be even more inconvenienced.
When I was a kid, I'd eat Trix cereal. I enjoyed it. Now - I find it sort of gross. It's too sweet. You can reach that same point with cake or pizza or a candy bar, etc. - in that, those foods become sort of gross. Foods like spinach become more satisfying. Not only that, but that satisfaction may yield a higher reward than you ever could with Trix cereal. But you'd never reach that higher level of satisfaction as long as you're eating Trix cereal every day.
My company recently switched to UHC for 2025. My regular monthly out of network claim was fine with Aetna. With UHC? After I filled out a long form with information in a PDF, they mailed me a letter saying they needed more information. The exact information I had already given them, except for one thing trivially looked up, the provider's phone number. They asked that I mail them more information. I don't have a printer. So I had to get PDFs, go to the library, print them, buy envelopes (yes they did not provide one) and stamps, and mail it. I have yet to hear back anything. I am going to have to follow up myself. Is it worth it to me to spend this much time? The frustration is real. Even if the doctor here is technically in the wrong, UHC deserves every negative press possible. What they pull should be illegal, companies like these are a big part of why our healthcare system is a joke.
Noting that the article's findings from 2018 need to be re-evaluated on up-to-date versions before deriving conclusions because in the last 6 years (and especially in the last 3 or so for .NET) the garbage collector implementations of both Go and .NET have evolved quite significantly. The sustained multi-core allocation throughput graph more or less holds but other numbers will differ significantly.
One of the major factors that play in Go's favour is the right attitude to architecting the libraries - the zero-copy slicing is much more at the forefront in Go than in .NET (technically incorrect but not in terms of how the average impl. looks like), and the flexible nature of C# combined with it being seen as "be glad we even support this Microsoft's Java" by many vendors lead to poor quality vendor libraries. This results in the experience where developers see Go applications be more efficient, not realizing that it's the massively worse quality implementation of a dependency their .NET solution has to deal with (there was a recent comparison video, where .NET was estimated to be slower, but the reality was that it wasn't .NET but the AWS SDK dependency and the benchmark author being most familiar with Go and making optimal choices with significant impact there like using DB connection pooling).
I'm often impressed by how much punishment GC and compiler can take, continuing to provide competitive performance despite massive amounts of data reallocations and abstraction bloat thrown at it by developers who don't want to even consider to approach C# in an idiomatic C# way (at the very least by listening to IDE suggestions and warnings). In some areas, I even recommend to look at community libraries first which are likely to provide far superior experience if documentation and brief code audit indicate that its authors care(tm) which is one of the most important metrics.
This seems to be endemic to civilization period. Nobody pays attention until the last one breaks, and by then nobody knows how it's done anymore. I'm reminded of the fleet of ships that repairs undersea data cables, which are looking at aging staffing issues.
I pay $173 per year for JetBrain's 'All Products Pack'. Considering the salary I make as a software engineer, and the quality of the tools JetBrains provides, this is a great investment. Rider works flawlessly for me, far better than VS.
As a side, it always strikes me as ironic that software developers are paid extremely well and yet hesitate to pay even a modest fee for the tools that enable them to do their job. Most "free" tools are not free - someone was paid to create them. IMO whether engineers are on a stable payroll is a differentiating aspect to why some tools succeed and become widely used and some don't. In the case of dev tools, our tech corporatocracy MAMA (Microsoft, Apple, Meta, Alphabet) pay engineers to make products like VS Code, then release for free. This is for eyeballs of course, because charging for the tools would get them nothing in comparison to their main platform revenue streams, which benefit hugely from the network effect.
> Why not develop Mojo in the open from the beginning?
> Mojo is a big project and has several architectural differences from previous languages. We believe a tight-knit group of engineers with a common vision can move faster than a community effort. This development approach is also well-established from other projects that are now open source (such as LLVM, Clang, Swift, MLIR, etc.).
Isn't that what this and other papers say - that AMOC is doomed to collapse, it's just a matter of time? I'm not sure I'd equate AMOC collapse to industrial civilization collapsing.
My understanding with climate change is that we have signed up for a lot already, but much more is on the way if we don't make big changes faster. Humanity is a crisis-motivated species. The trouble with climate change is the effects so far have nearly no impact on power. If AMOC were to shut down in 2030 devastating Europe's economy, that could be the wake-up call to everyone to actually stop fossil-burning ourselves to doom for short-term conveniences.
https://josephg.com/blog/3-tribes/
reply