>The difference is that our younger selves were maybe more optimistic and naive and probably would have just produced a new mess for the next one to scratch his/her head about.
I haven't read the book, but that paragraph makes me think in all the artists that never did anything interesting, but were artists. It makes me think in all the artists that believed strongly that their work, and indeed their existence, was of the utmost importance, even if it wasn't.
This is not a rant, you need to believe in yourself to do art, you need to believe that your work is of the most upmost importance, otherwise you wouldn't be able to give in to it.
The problem is that, from the outside, that is not necessarily true, and often isn't.
I actually agree with the premise, I do need solitude to be creative. I don´t want to feel lonely, but I need to feel that my mind will not be perturbed at unexpected times, for unwelcome reasons. I just want to emphasize that calling ourselves artists is not making us any favors.
> It may not make sense right now, but you may spend the next decade or so chasing money to get to a point of contentment only to realize that you’re chasing after money because you think it’s going to give you peace. The turn is when you figure out money doesn’t give you peace.
it does give me peace, it relaxes me to know my son will have food and shelter. That we'll be able to pay for learning resources and fun things. It helps to know that, if things get a bit rough, we will have some money to hold on until things get better.
It relaxes me to know that if any of us get sick, we'll be able to pay the bills... hopefully.
>Nothing you point out gets even close, in my mind, to stuff like null pointers or untyped code. So I wonder what languages you have in mind that require less patience.
You two are talking about two different things:
- The parent is talking about the ecosystem, how menial tasks have tooling in "less interesting" languages
- You are talking about the language itself
I would venture to guess that the parent would agree with you, if talking about the language in a vacuum.
An interesting competition would be to develop a complex product, without external dependencies.
My sad guess is that languages that are filled with escape hatches, like Java, Javascript, or python, would defeat more strict languages.
It's a sad guess, because I actually do prefer the Haskell way.
most likely Putin and his cronies are too isolated from reality, i.e. the information they receive is filtered/doctored to fit whatever they expect. Not dissimilar to the kings of old, or Dictators like Hitler, or Fidel
> When The College Board, the company who administers Advanced Placement (AP) courses and the SAT test to thousands of future college applicants each year, began developing the AP Computer Science Principles (AP CSP) course(...)The data also showed that students who took AP CSP were over three times as likely to major in computer science when they advanced to college. They are also twice as likely to enroll for AP CSA, a course that focuses on programming languages. Those increases were seen across all desired demographics, including first generation college students.
> I used to be excited by programming language features instead of what problem I was actually trying to solve with programming. I'd spend hours condensing 10 lines of perfectly working code into 1 line of the most concise text possible (...) they should be impressed by what the program does for them, not what language features you used to implement it.
Interestingly, what made me go through similar evolution was the very language in which I was trying to do all those things, namely Scala. After a few years of trying to be "smart", I realized that the problem was usually bigger than the language.
So perhaps, it wasn't Go, nor Scala, who helped us in our realization, but life and experience?
This needs to be highlighted!