This, whilst likely true, is not a self-evident fact.
I think the argument in the blog post is weak because it does not quantify what makes Go more suitable for learning than say, Erlang or Clojure, which are dismissed outright, before moving on to discuss some of the advantages of Go in depth.
Sorry for the diversion, but what is/was it like to be able to ace a test without really studying for it?
The only emotion I can ever recall feeling when staring down at an exam is abject fear as every fact I knew drained out of my head.
I was always a relatively bright kid, but never super smart. When I worked hard, I got top grades and when I slacked, I didn't. At some point I stopped working hard and drifted through education, getting a mediocre degree on the way (on the upside, I have great soft skills).
From discussions with other gifted people, I get the impression that most of them worked really, really hard, even if they didn't realise it. But I have heard the odd person who maintains it all came naturally. Is this you?
I've read through about half of the on-line content and I'm impressed, I would gladly pay for a completed version, particularly if it was available to read on a kindle.
So, please consider finding a way to make this project worth your while as I really want to see this completed.
The whole article is no more than a glorified appeal to authority/audacity from a so called expert nutritionist who, it turns out, pimps detox and other homoeopathic diets fads on her website.
Nice article. I'd certainly like to see you go a little bit deeper still.
I'm not sure if many people are familiar with the ideas behind domain driven design (as in, the Eric Evans book), but I find that modelling your documents around your aggregate roots is a good starting point.
If this isn't for a research-orientated position or a very technical (mathematical) role - in which case, you probably want that to read PhD or MEng in Maths or Physics - then why bother with this particular bit of criteria? Since when does having a PhD or MEng make you a better software developer?
I had that fear too (like yourself, the last time I touched mathematics was during my GCSE's and I wasn't exactly a prodigy then) and it was exactly why I did MU123 first rather than jumping into MST121 despite that fact I think I could have handled it.
I reasoned that by being thorough and starting from the beginning (i.e. the most basic module) that I was not likely to encounter any concept later on in the course that had not previously been introduced to me. Hence no ambiguity. Rather convoluted logic I know, but it worked for me.
So you are studying both at the same time? How do you manage that?
I'm currently working through MST121 myself, it takes a surprising amount of work (compared to you I'm obviously a slow studier as my total commitment is about 2 hours a day, luckily my commute consists of two, one hour train journeys) but I'm finding it really enjoyable, if not therapeutic, a chance to get away from the real world... sadly very much an attitude I wish had when I was younger.
I was actually so rusty I had to take MU123 initially, it was a bit mundane in parts but I was glad I did, there was so many of the basics I had forgotten.
I think the argument in the blog post is weak because it does not quantify what makes Go more suitable for learning than say, Erlang or Clojure, which are dismissed outright, before moving on to discuss some of the advantages of Go in depth.