When I first visited San Francisco for a work trip, I was so underwhelmed about my experience there, don't take me wrong I think it's a great city with a lot going on, but I couldn't help but feel like it was so overhyped. Several friends wouldn't stop talking about how great SF is, and in my mind I always had this silly image of self driving cars, entire streets dedicated to technology and all kinds of futuristic scenery before I visited but instead on my first visit I was greeted by some crackhead spitting on me while riding BART, lots of beggars and homeless people as I got out of the station and walked around, trash in the streets and it looked like just another city. Lots of restaurants and bars though, fantastic food selection.
I could be a bit biased on my view though, as I'm more of a suburb person.
I'd like to visit Palo Alto and San Jose to check it out at some point, I've heard it has a lot to offer too
I'm a emacs convert from vim (big reason is because module support is just leagues ahead of vim, Vundle, Pathogen, or anything else don't come close to emacs package management). A huge reason why I stuck with it is because evil. evil is very mature and is incredibly close to vim, some say it's a better vim than vim.
I tried a lot of "vi modes" in several IDEs but none of them cut it, you can map anything to evil and you can, of course, map commands to different states. Something I found very usefil is that you can even set states for different buffers, for example, for magit buffers (another amazing emacs module and a very good reason to use emacs) I default those to "insert" mode.
I haven't used Intero myself, but I've yet to find any kind of conflict between evil or any other module.
Javascript leading the way? What are you talking about?
First class functions is a concept from mathematics and many programming languages had this feature way before javascript existed, and I simply don't understand exactly what concept of Go's lexical scoping resembles anything exclusive of javascript.
I don't understand the last paragraphs about methods with data and data with methods, but Go's structs resembles C's structs, binding methods to a struct is an thing I've only seen in Go, but maybe some other programming language had this before.
It is much easier to prove a particular program function correct when complexity is properly handled, this is the true art of programming, handling complexity in a way that makes sense.
Many complex phenomena in nature is explained by very simple mathematical equations, likewise great engineering design is achieved when there is nothing else to remove, and in order to achieve those results, a great deal of effort and thinking has to happen first.
The thing is, as the author put out, the environment is just too hostile in order to design beautiful programs, from the insane expectations of what can be done, to incompetent peers, politics, distractions and what not.
If you are skilled, you can define a problem in a precise way, be able to dissect it in smaller problems, solve them and prove the solution correct.
What is ultimately hard is how to handle the hostile environment you're usually stuck with.
This gives the false impression that xmonad is not as fast as other twms. Xmonad is very lightweight, the package is below 500kb, which is below i3 and awesome. It has a very minimal and clean interface. The configuration file IS the twm (similar to DWM) xmonad is just a library. You write your WM which might be a turnoff for users that don't want to spend the time doing so.
Since xmonad is a Haskell library, you need the compiler. There's a reason why ghc is so big compared to other compilers, but just because it is a big dependency, it doesn't make xmonad any less lightweight
I could be a bit biased on my view though, as I'm more of a suburb person.
I'd like to visit Palo Alto and San Jose to check it out at some point, I've heard it has a lot to offer too