I'm not sure I'd take design advice from someone who thought attr.ib and attr.s were a good idea. On the other hand he points out that DDD is a vacuous cult, which is true.
I think that to understand the diversity of opinions, we have to recognize a few different categories of users:
Category 1: people who don't like to admit that anything trendy can also be good at what it does.
Category 2: people who don't like to admit that anything made by for-profit tech companies can also be good at what it does.
Category 3: people who don't like to admit that anything can write code better than them.
Category 4: people who don't like to admit that anything which may be put people out of work who didn't deserve to be put out of work, and who already earn less than the people creating the thing, can also be good at what it does
Category 5: people who aren't using llms for things they are good at
Category 6: people who can't bring themselves to communicate with AIs with any degree of humility
Category 7: people to whom none of the above applies
>> Do you have a reference where I can learn about this?
> I don't really understand what you're asking for.
That comes across as rude and condescending; please don't communicate like that. Your English skills seem OK but in case you still need help, they're asking for a "reference" -- that's an online source of some sort probably, where they can "learn about" it -- that means that the reference would contain content helping them to understand the topic better. For example, the helpful content you gave after your rude and condescending initial comment would be an example of such content.
No escape from the mass mind rape
Play it again Jack and then rewind the tape
And then play it again and again and again
Until your mind is locked in
Believin' all the lies that they're tellin' ya
Buyin' all the products that they're sellin' ya
They say, "Jump" and you say, "How high?"
You brain-dead, you got a fuckin' bullet in your head
One thing that bothers me is when people refer to languages like Go and Rust as "not object-oriented". Of course they are object oriented; Go and Rust programs consist of struct definitions to which you associate methods, giving rise to individually instantiatable objects with custom behavior, and you use these objects to model entities in your problem domain. This is object-orientation.
Where they differ from OO languages such as Java and Python is of course that they avoid traditional inheritance, offering more restricted inheritance-adjacent features (typeclasses/traits/interfaces and struct embedding).
Like many others I find Go disappointing in many regards. (Although Go's channels, goroutines, select, and implicit interfaces are beautiful). One disappointment is the way that methods are not indented or nested within the struct definition/interface that they are defined on. This is, IMO, a silly fig-leaf that is attempting to make the language look "not OO" in a superficial manner, but all it ends up doing is making it hard to see where your implementation of one interface ends and another starts.
OK. For reference, I was an Emacs user for 20 years, and participated heavily in emacs extension development. I used to think like you early on. But, especially if you use languages with expressive/complex type systems, having the editor be able to inform you about types is very useful. So I understand where you're coming from, but you're probably being too absolutist and are upholding preferences that you should re-examine. For example, it's basically silly to write Rust without using rust-analyzer. I agree that feedback can be a distraction while typing but it should be possible to tune your IDE editor to not display anything until a specified amount of time has passed with no keypresses.
Can you give more details regarding what IDE features you have in mind? I agree that java/c# people not knowing how to use the command line is bad (because they only know how to click "build project" etc) but IDE features such as LSP, compiler error messages as you type, intelligent completion, variable renaming, etc I think are essential tools.
I can't read the news because it's so upsetting to watch the world allow a naked genocide, or discuss it with my family. The 7 Nov terrorist attack was disgusting, and since then Israel has proved to the entire world, beyond anyone's remaining doubt,that they are a disgusting nation.
This article is missing a "What are signals" section. And yes, this does not do the job:
> Within JS frameworks and libraries, there has been a large amount of experimentation across different ways to represent this binding, and experience has shown the power of one-way data flow in conjunction with a first-class data type representing a cell of state or computation derived from other data, now often called "Signals".
You sound really full of yourself and entitled. A job should last several years, why not spend half a day applying? You don't sound like you really want a new job anyway, but maybe try to put yourself in the shoes of people who do, or who actually _need_ a job.
Small thing but postgres should deprecate the names it uses for the CLI commands like "adduser" "createuser" etc; they should have a prefix like "pg-adduser" or more modern, be subcommands of a single "pg" or "pgctl" command. Has there been a move toward that yet?
I have literally no idea why people care so much about typing latency. If you type that fast, I suggest that you seriously consider finding a more intellectually challenging task.
Just saying something isn't open source isn't a valid criticism, and it's not an interesting contribution to HN. You could say the same about any software at all that's not open source; it has no positive contribution to the discussion of this piece of software.