I also hate the idea of streaming, but I have been super lazy in the past
I have listened to 44,000 songs on Spotify over the last 13 years. It has brought me a ton of value, but I would love to move back to owning my music as files. I've been getting fancier with managing self-hosted infra at home, especially using AI to help me out.
Maybe I'll get back there, but I also can't imagine only listening to 500 songs!!!!
I had to take computer architecture. We made a 4 bit CPU... or maybe it was 8 bit. I can't remember. But it was all in a software breadboard simulator thing. LogicWorks.
GraphQL and SQL are not comparable or competing technologies. GraphQL is more analogous to a REST API. GraphQL can use SQL under the hood, or you can even hand serve the bytes (tongue in cheek here). It's just an over-the-network protocol to serve data.
a Node.JS server might use SQL directly or call out to a GraphQL API, but I literally don't think it's possible to let client-side JavaScript (safely) call a SQL database server directly.
This seems unnecessary if we can run imports from functions, right? This feels like a layer of indirection and a potential source for confusion. Rather than implicitly importing a library when the variable is first used, why don't you just explicitly do it?
Edit
> A somewhat common way to delay imports is to move the imports into functions (inline imports), but this practice requires more work to implement and maintain, and can be subverted by a single inadvertent top-level import. Additionally, it obfuscates the full set of dependencies for a module. Analysis of the Python standard library shows that approximately 17% of all imports outside tests (nearly 3500 total imports across 730 files) are already placed inside functions or methods specifically to defer their execution. This demonstrates that developers are already manually implementing lazy imports in performance-sensitive code, but doing so requires scattering imports throughout the codebase and makes the full dependency graph harder to understand at a glance.
I think this is a really weak foundation for this language feature. We don't need it.
The way this is written makes it sound like you think there's an algorithm saying "if bad person: then boost".
The credibility is ranking. The ranking is a function of engagement. The engagement is a function of human nature. Things delightful, shocking, or unusual usually strike that chord. Sprinkle capitalism into the mix and people become professionally delightful, shocking, or unusual.
I don't think the ranking algorithms are the problem here.