I started working professionally in Delphi around 1998, and then spent 13 years evolving and maintaining a sprawling 2+ mloc reservation system.
They had a great thing going around that time, but then the pivoting and squeezing started. Instead of evolution we got enterprices, buzzwords and bit rot. By Delphi7, I'd say it was already as good as dead.
All owners so far share an unfortunate tendency to oversell half-baked solutions with no future, all the way up until the point where they pivot and push a brand new successor with no future while deprecating the previous attempt asap.
Their database, Interbase; was open source for about a month. Until the suits realized that no one would buy their shiny enterprice crap if they could simply download it for free, and it was closed again asap. Only now all the people who knew anything had joined effort in a fork called FirebirdSQL.
It was even released for Linux under the name Kylix, free for non-commercial use if I remember correctly. Until Microsoft bullied them into dropping the cross-platform game right now in return for cozy time with the centerfold creep and his side kick sweaty monkey. I just threw up a little in my mouth writing that so I'll stop here.
Told them to start acting human or sod off? I can wish, can't I?
Trying harder is never the answer to anything. People already are doing their best, whatever that means in a specific context. And however far from whatever expectations.
Pushing harder might very well lower productivity overall, since everyone now likes working there even less than before. And it's very difficult to regain trust and loyalty.
You'll have different kinds of bugs, but as long as there are programs they will contain bugs. Or the languages themselves will, or the libraries used, or the OS.
Assuming the presence of bugs/failures and providing powerful tools to deal with them like Erlang is a more realistic option if you ask me.
What is it with these people and controlling the choices of other, quite possibly more experienced, programmers?
Why is it not enough to offer better tools and let the rest take care of itself? Or to solve problems using a tool that fits your way of thinking? Why do you need a cult/marketing effort if the language is as good as it claims to be?
The more of this bullshit I'm confronted with, the less inclined I am to ever let Rust slip into a project I'm involved in.
Because ecosystems are driven by mindshare (popularity), convenience, adoption potential barriers, public shaming (eww, that's nasty, but .. people are people), and other psychological micro-foundations. Basically it's a cold war of persuasion. Sometimes leading by example works, sometimes by showing how awesome, cool, fast, safe your shiny stuff is, sometimes it works by appealing to people's sense of the "greater good" (how many Korean, Chinese, Iranian, Saudi, etc. democratists are in secret prisons, because broken C code).
And of course there's some truth to it. Look how Py2 is still not dead, because rewriting twisted is hard. (Which no one said it was easy.) And how long it took for distros to make it the default, and how long it took for anyone to not default to it. And of course there were people even complaining about how Py3 broke all their nice code that worked before by accident.
So if collectively everyone had made a push some years ago, we would be long over. But of course organizing these things is an even bigger problem than just sitting down and firing off PRs to twisted.
In what way is this aiming to control programmers? This person is explaining how they would have experienced a difficult bug but a certain technology helped them avoid it. Seems like it's just "offer[ing] better tools".
I would be careful with projecting that experience, everything is not about signaling; sooner or later mostly everyone will come to the conclusion that pretending isn't leading anywhere. Because it isn't.
Not depending on Instagram's algorithms and the opinions of its marketing department and your followers is _better_, for everyone. Dependency in general is rarely a good thing.
Judging is a different issue. But not giving a shit about what other people think usually goes hand in hand with not giving a shit about what they do either.
Funny story: I had just started working at a SV-based startup with mandatory surfing lessons and a fivefinger-wearing transhumanist CEO when Silicon Valley started.
Watching it was very painful, to say the least. Having to go through it is one thing, having your nose rubbed in it another.
They had a great thing going around that time, but then the pivoting and squeezing started. Instead of evolution we got enterprices, buzzwords and bit rot. By Delphi7, I'd say it was already as good as dead.
All owners so far share an unfortunate tendency to oversell half-baked solutions with no future, all the way up until the point where they pivot and push a brand new successor with no future while deprecating the previous attempt asap.
Their database, Interbase; was open source for about a month. Until the suits realized that no one would buy their shiny enterprice crap if they could simply download it for free, and it was closed again asap. Only now all the people who knew anything had joined effort in a fork called FirebirdSQL.
It was even released for Linux under the name Kylix, free for non-commercial use if I remember correctly. Until Microsoft bullied them into dropping the cross-platform game right now in return for cozy time with the centerfold creep and his side kick sweaty monkey. I just threw up a little in my mouth writing that so I'll stop here.