Using a content-type header instead of .json or .xml (etc) extension in the URL is just another example of this phenomenon. There's a reason people are moving to use dot extensions in URLs - it's easier to adopt and test.
Funny - when looking at a codebase for the first time, I do almost exactly the same thing as described by Mr Seibel: I start rewriting it. I rename functions or methods that I think have poorly chosen names, I rename the names of fields, variables or parameters for the same reason, I refactor, restructure, and reformat the code to look like I think it should look, and so on.
While powershell is a valuable and interesting option, the problem with it is that it changes the basic metaphor.
For 40 years unix shells and their descendants and derivatives including cmd.exe have used files and text streams as the metaphor for interconnecting processes. Powershell changes that, and it means the output of one command goes to the input of another command as "objects".
This can be powerful, but it is also very disorienting. Which means it can be hard to learn to do even basic things in powershell, things that would take only a pipe or two and a couple unxutls programs in cmd.exe.
In cmd.exe, easy things are easy and hard things can be really hard. In powershell, hard things are hard (as opposed to "really hard") and easy things are hard.
Coders talk too much. They are in love with themselves.
Did you ever hear a cabinetmaker talk about all the considerations that went into the new cabinet he made, how he did the planing just right to hide that knot in the wood, or how he chose just the right species of wood, or how he had to feather the one cut because of a loose blade or the fact that the finish the customer asked for would expand the wood? Did you ever see a carpenter write 5 paragraphs on how much thought and consideration went into how he leveled the kitchen cabinet on such an uneven floor?
No. They know their jobs, they do their jobs, they appreciate and strive for excellence, and they go home at night.
Did you ever hear a doctor wax poetic about how fabulous a job they did excising the tumor from the patient's brain, how they brought in just the right amount of outside expertise, how they deliberated just long enough to be prudent and then took action at just the right time? How they balanced and weighed all the factors, the age of the patient, the seriousness of the tumor, the location, the likely disruption, the family support and post-operative therapy plan.
No. They do their jobs, they work hard, then they go home.
What is it with all these coders who cannot just do their jobs and do them well, and then shut up?
We GET IT. YOU'RE FABULOUS. YOU THINK IMPORTANT THOUGHTS ABOUT SOFTWARE AND INTERFACES AND SO ON.
Who here coded a solver into the game that used the quadratic formula? I tied it to a particular key and it would momentarily, almost imperceptibly flash a correct solution on the page after I selected an angle. heh heh.
That headline ought to read "Voyager reaches beginning of interstellar space". The interstellar space is the space between solar systems, so it would be impossible for the craft to reach "the end" unless it exited the Galaxy.
There's no clear line where our Sun's system ends though. Maybe the Heliopause, but Voyager ain't there yet.
The OP seems to be very willing to draw general conclusions when none are warranted.
When faced with a project in which code modularization was a problem, his proposed solution was to port the code? Seriously? Port Javascript to Actionscript because the .js was organized into too few modules?
People suggesting that Go is a potential replacement for Python, Lua or Ruby are missing the point. IMO, Go isn't designed to compete with those existing languages for existing opportunities.
The key opportunity in the future is smart devices everywhere. Embedded, connected intellgence, everywhere. Everything is a communication device. Today your phone and your car; tomorrow: Your shoes, your office, the grocery store, your refrigerator. Think of xbox Kinect-type sensors embedded into everything.
Writing solid C code for all those systems will be too hard. We also definitely do not want an serendipitously-designed language (Javascript). Yes, that leaves Python Ruby and so on, which brings us full circle. Go will compete with those languages but not in the domains that are evident today. Not in web browser, and not in a new! improved! web server. It seems to me that Go is a forward-looking design, aimed to meet the challenges of the everything-connected world of tomorrow.
To make tomorrow happen, we need a better C. Go is that.
This is pretty typical of the series. There are 3 or 4 drivers to a car for the Le Mans race (24 hours continuous racing). Two or 3 of those will be professional drivers, and one is a rich amateur who brings money. Pay-to-play.
How much you pay and how much you play is up for negotiation. Every team is different.