Do you believe we would be better off if we destroyed/prohibited all the technological innovations you mentioned in your comment? Stop for a moment and think about that. Then, read the article below:
If the so called "evil wealthy people" control all the machines that produce goods and services, what would they use those goods and services for, since the rest of the world is miserably poor?
Apparently not even Stephen Hawking understands the broken window fallacy.
Lockheed had been working with D-Wave for a while. If they decided to actually buy one of their computers, this probably means that they liked what they were seeing.
He says he dislikes a private system but, at the same time, indirectly acknowledges that what makes the system at his district work is the fact that it is partly private. It is partly private because people actually raise money voluntarily and charge outsiders in order to make it work.
Humans will always figure out a way to combine the resources they have to generate additional value. It doesn't matter if these resources are wood, sand, oil, water, steel or software.
In the example given above, the owner of the business buying more automation is actually an explicit example of an enterpreneur REINVESTING. A manual job is being traded by a specialized job. Demand for specialized jobs is being created. I fail to understand where on earth that would be a bad thing.
When resources are reallocated, some people lose their jobs on the way, that's just the way life is. A responsible individual doesn't take a job for granted and saves so that he or she can go through bad times.
By visiting a third world country it is very easy to observe the lack of automation employed by its society. Yet, quality of life is ridiculous. Can you explain why?
The bottom line is: everything that cannot be scientifically proved acquires this sort of "religous" attributes. No wonder religions and politics are like that
What he wrote about Microsoft is completely unrelated to the rest of his post. It says nothing about the company's culture and software development processes.
He could have saved himself the embarrassment of writing that.
I also feel like "Funcs" are a work around. What I like the most about C# is the fact that it keeps evolving and incorporating new paradigms (closures, lambdas, LINQ, etc)
Bottom line is: test code is code and you have to maintain it. If you write code that does not give you anything in return, or gives you more headaches than anything else, you wasted your time when you wrote it.
When you are writing any code, you should try to predict if what you will gain out of it will be worth it. In other words: evaluate the risks of anything you do in your life.