Not exactly Clojure-related, but I wonder how acceptable is it for a programmer to suggest a technical decision by one’s own passion over company’s interest.
> The business case for Go is very strong now. Sh*t.
It sounded like a negative news for Suzi as she wanted to promote Clojure, but it’s positive for the company, as Go is a more suitable choice in this case. If a programmer is asked to make a technical decision, comes up if a solution based mostly on passion, isn’t it misleading?
I’ve seen a Haskeller claiming “this thing can be better expressed in a custom DSL” and started to write a parser, which in retrospect absolutely unnecessary, the passion was so strong that decisions got irrational. Shouldn’t a programmer be honest and say “this is not the best tool, but it’s my favorite, using it makes me happy”?
Our company uses Haskell and the Haskell team love to define their own solutions which make things even more inconstant. For error handling they end up using an extensible type-level-list containing possible error types, embedded in an extensible effect monad. We also have list, array, vector, and our own collection types in the same place.
It feels like everyone want to make things better by using/making something new, instead of making them consistent.
I got into my school's network when I was 10, people were furious for my hacking, nobody questioned why was there a security issue so obvious that even a 10-years-old could break in.
Few years later I accidentally found another way to get in. I sent an email to the school's IT department, got ignored. I sent it to the headmaster, he said "Thanks, will fix it". Except it was never fixed.
Maybe fixing the child is easier than fixing the software.
I see a lot of people making the argument of “a bigger car is safer when crashing with other cars”, but that’s not very sustainable when everybody thinks the same. A US truck is small when everyone is driving a monster truck to protect themselves from “normal” trucks
As far as I know, there isn't a limit of power / speed for kei car category. In the old days Suzuki made a kei car that was "too powerful", the government "communicated" with them, and they settled with 64hps. Since then all the manufactures self-imposed the 64hps limit, but it's still legal for someone to power up their own car.
Smart K is another non-Japanese kei car that's more powerful.
I live in Tokyo and drive an old kei car.
Despite being not very powerful, it does provide me whatever I need. Driving it on highway (about 100km/h) feels alright, of course it’s not as quiet or comfortable as bigger cars, but not unacceptable. I am sure newer models are much improved.
Many car parks here have height/size limit, or even kei-car-only space, and it’s just easier to park even for regular places.
I find myself feeling more responsible by driving a small car, when I stop at the side of a road, it occupies at most half of the lane, so another kei car can bypass easily. Maybe it’s a Japanese thing, but unlike SUV’s “getting higher up to see more”, I am more like “I am as small as everyone else so I don’t block people’s view”.
> The business case for Go is very strong now. Sh*t.
It sounded like a negative news for Suzi as she wanted to promote Clojure, but it’s positive for the company, as Go is a more suitable choice in this case. If a programmer is asked to make a technical decision, comes up if a solution based mostly on passion, isn’t it misleading? I’ve seen a Haskeller claiming “this thing can be better expressed in a custom DSL” and started to write a parser, which in retrospect absolutely unnecessary, the passion was so strong that decisions got irrational. Shouldn’t a programmer be honest and say “this is not the best tool, but it’s my favorite, using it makes me happy”?