I actually disagree. Once you remove the cruft and crap of the involved syntax, good OOP design tends to look damn close to FP design. So I flip your point of view - class based OOP is the hack - despite not really using Clojure or FP in my dayjob or hobby projects anymore. Most fun I had with OOP was definitely Common Lisp though.
When it comes to concurrency, what can golang's runtime do that is so special? When I tried it, it seemed like a worse version of Erlang's for people that prefer C style syntax. Depending upon your design space pervasive immutability is a huge boon too and golang doesn't have that but Clojure does - Erlang obviously having that and more.
I agree Golang is a worse version of OTP, no question about it, but if you are not allowed to code in Erlang/Elixir/Gleam (which sadly is 99.9% of the projects on the planet) then Golang is the next best thing.
It has footguns, sure, but with library support and discipline it can get you very far.
To me it's embarrassing that PLs still tout syntax and various other goodies, completely glossing over runtime. I might be missing something. But faux humble statements aside, I feel many others are the ones who miss something -- and that's the fact that doing stuff in parallel is a fact of life for 20+ years now and it's time all popular PL runtimes finally wake up to that fact.
If not, I am simply not considering them. And I am not saying that arrogantly though it sounds that way; there are some PLs that I _really_ liked and was almost heart-broken that I had to abandon them and not work professionally with them. But I have enough experience to know that runtime choice matters, a lot.
For the record, Racket was one of those PLs I abandoned. I know they started working on parallelism some years ago but I had to make a decision next week back then so, Elixir + Golang + Rust it is for me.
> If it was cheaper to replace the car than get it serviced, they would replace it.
This is doing a lot of work but I'm going to go with a charitable interpretation. I seriously doubt that we'll ever hit a state where replacing a 2 ton vehicle is cheaper than repairing it. And if we do, I'll have to re-evaluate my charitable interpretation, because something shady is likely going on.
The crazy thing is people don't even repair things that are cheaper to repair than replace. Our countertop icemaker broke and my wife wanted to throw it out. I fixed it with 20 minutes of time and a $15 motor from Amazon.
I think the broader trend isn't what's cheapest, its what is easiest, even if its more expensive. People in large part have no idea how to repair anything they own. This mass ignorance is leading to some pretty poor market incentives.
A lot of it does come down to a cost / benefit analysis where time preference is extremely overweighted due to an abundance of seemingly free credit and, shall we say, a tragic dustbowl famine of available cognitive resources.
>I think the broader trend isn't what's cheapest, its what is easiest, even if its more expensive.
I don't think this is true. If this is the trend you're seeing it's probably because you're sampling through people with relatively high disposable income(or who don't mind endless credit card debt), who can just afford to throw away broken things when it's just a rounding error of their income.
But if you look at lower income people(with sane spending habits and financial literacy) you'll see how they first ask around if something can be repaired before they claw money from their checking account to buy something new.
My local facebook group is full of students asking if someone can fix their macbooks for cheap as they can't afford a new one or what Apple is quoting them, which is close in cost to buying a new one.
My minimum wage gf still had her barely functional Windows 7 notebook up until a year ago because she didn't feel like spending money to buy a new one if I could just keep fixing it.
Some broke people try not to buy new things if they can, but some are broke because they can't stop buying new things.
As a general rule the least charitable interpretation of a CEO's words are probably the most accurate. Considering the increasing backlash against AI this sounds more like a PR move than a change in actual belief.
I'm completely on board with your view, I'm still rocking a 1080ti. But I'd also like to buy my kids a gaming computer someday, and I don't know when that will be, especially with prices being what they are. It took a shockingly long amount of time for a graphics card to come out at 1080 performance that costed less than a 1080.
Are you saying we're entering a period where tech increases in price instead of decreases? I guess it depends upon time horizon, but your statement isn't very specific.
reply