I thought this list was hilarious (despite some of my preferred languages being on the never use list). I'm surprised to see so many people taking it so personally/serious.
If this list really offends you, I would suggest you haven't been programming very long, you don't know many other languages (than the ones on the shit list), or both. Maybe the list is a little hyperbolic, but didn't you pick up on the tone?
When I was first exposed to Medium (which was before I started coding), the coolaborative notes and highlights really felt like what I would want a literature github to be.
Just as a thought experiment, it's interesting that I think nothing of forking and maintaining a codebase for personal use, but I can't imagine participating in the writing of stories in the same way. Literature seems to maintain the primacy of the 'maintainer', but if I think about the evolution of storytelling generally, this doesn't seem to have always been the case
The opening of this rings true for me. Once I get a pattern ingrained, it can be difficult to reverse it even if there is a more efficient way. To combat this I usually pick one thing per coding session to work on. I find lists like these helpful to check-in and see if I can add anything to my future to-work-on lists.
When I started learning vim I read an interview where someone (Ben Orenstein maybe?) talked about keeping notecards or a cheatsheet on their desk so they could do the same thing and I thought they were insane (and vim was insane). With time though, this method got me proficient at vim, then better, then better still. Each time I learn something new or unlearn sometime inefficient for something better I get a little bit of joy out of my daily work.
I find t and f more useful in my day to day. On any given line there is almost always some character that gets me within a few words of where I want to be then w or b to get to the word itself. Might be somewhat language/style specific though
Though I think there are parts of this letter that are obviously self serving and hypocritical the point I find more problematic actually has nothing to do with Spotify.
Apple says most apps contribute nothing to the app store. This is false. To list an app on the app store developers must pay, yearly, for the privilege. This is important because a reasonable person could make the argument that _this_ is a more fair model and one more in line with providing the actual service of the app store.
Apple,rightly IMO, has accused Spotify if wanting to have it's cake and eat it too, but charging a fee to list and taking a percentage of revenue could easily be seen as the same.
One thing I always think about with lists like this is that those goods are made to be consumed at the level in which they are currently being consumed (i.e. not very much).
A few examples:
Consumer grade tools and appliances will reach what their manufacturer considers a lifetime's worth of use very quickly with increased utilization and likely fall apart or stop working as expected.
Purely mechanical things, like a bike, require regular and predictable maintenance with use.
It may seem like these items can be rented out "for free" because our own utilization is so low, but if you get a 5x increase in use, you can quickly find your margins evaporate to repair costs.
Obviously it is possible to turn these into successful businesses, but there is nothing magical about the fact that they are currently under utilized.
I have had this memory from some time ago about a scene from a podcast. Scientists in a lab are trying to wrangle an insect (which I remember to be a mantis of some kind) with a glass rod. The insect bites the rod with such force that it snaps and the arc of the motion lacerates the bugs middle (thorax?). From the cut fat begins to come out. Instictually the bug begins to eat it's own fat while dying.
I wish I could remember or find the podcast. I feel like it was radio lab, but can't find it.
I thought the same about those until I tried to follow the examples. First in ruby and then in Vue, neither worked without a lot of hacking/changes. Really cool idea though to put the credentials in the examples.
I had the same thought when I read this. I wasn't into Rails back then (or development) so I don't have a sense of context for what the framework was like at that point in time, but the more articles I read about Twitter in the early days, the more of a sense I get that maybe they didn't write the best code.