I've worked worked developers that have a hardline against ORMs. I see lot of their points, especially around the performance of raw SQL. But I cannot get past how much boilerplate code that has be written over and over again. And then you have to test that boilerplate code. I find that most people are far more productive using an ORMs. To me this makes sense because it's less things to type. Less is often more.
We have services that don't ORMs and I have to wonder if it's worth the cost.
Note to others: Try not to defend yourself in an apology. Otherwise it ceases to become an apology, and instead becomes a list of reasons why there should be no accountability.
I'll give you that things are hardly ever binary. But toxicity is something that can be determined. They are the people do not care about others. They do not listen, no matter how many times you've talked to them. They see themselves as correct in their attitude, and others wrong. They do not change, or at least not in the short term (and definitely if they never suffer consequences). I've worked with these kind of people. We all have.
This whole "good outweighs the bad" is wrong.
1. Toxic people damage the company in general. Whether that be the reputation or culture. The consequences of their actions and words waste company resources.
2. They damage the productivity of others. Either indirectly or directly.
3. Most importantly: they hurt others. Nothing can outweigh the hurt they cause others.
Most expensive "historical" movies are wrong too. Otherwise I totally agree with you. I just don't think how much a movie cost to make matters much with regards to historical accuracy.
Per the presentation, you would need to weigh the benefits/costs. Since TypeScript is a superset of JavaScript, I would argue the cost of adding is very low. The benefits will be naturally high due to type definitions reducing bugs and cognitive overhead.
> Assistants help with this paperwork, which is different for every state and requires hours of reading and making phone calls to decipher.
Regardless of this, this still sounds like a market inefficiency. I have not read the book (but I certainly will now), but I'm going to guess the author's response would be that while the assistant's job is necessary for the engineer to remain productive, it is still a bullshit job. What's needed instead is an automated service that handles this for the engineer at far less of a cost or less bullshit paperwork from government.
> The purpose of prison should be to keep dangerous people out of society
Whatever happened to purpose of prison being rehabilitation? I mean... they are called correctional facilities. Are we so far gone now that we think criminals are beyond redemption and change?