da39a3ee

Category 1: people who don't like to admit that anything trendy can also be good at what it does.

Category 2: people who don't like to admit that anything made by for-profit tech companies can also be good at what it does.

Category 3: people who don't like to admit that anything can write code better than them.

Category 4: people who don't like to admit that anything which may be put people out of work who didn't deserve to be put out of work, and who already earn less than the people creating the thing, can also be good at what it does

Category 5: people who aren't using llms for things they are good at

Category 6: people who can't bring themselves to communicate with AIs with any degree of humility

Category 7: people to whom none of the above applies

> I don't really understand what you're asking for.

That comes across as rude and condescending; please don't communicate like that. Your English skills seem OK but in case you still need help, they're asking for a "reference" -- that's an online source of some sort probably, where they can "learn about" it -- that means that the reference would contain content helping them to understand the topic better. For example, the helpful content you gave after your rude and condescending initial comment would be an example of such content.

  No escape from the mass mind rape
  Play it again Jack and then rewind the tape
  And then play it again and again and again
  Until your mind is locked in
  Believin' all the lies that they're tellin' ya
  Buyin' all the products that they're sellin' ya
  They say, "Jump" and you say, "How high?"
  You brain-dead, you got a fuckin' bullet in your head

Where they differ from OO languages such as Java and Python is of course that they avoid traditional inheritance, offering more restricted inheritance-adjacent features (typeclasses/traits/interfaces and struct embedding).

Like many others I find Go disappointing in many regards. (Although Go's channels, goroutines, select, and implicit interfaces are beautiful). One disappointment is the way that methods are not indented or nested within the struct definition/interface that they are defined on. This is, IMO, a silly fig-leaf that is attempting to make the language look "not OO" in a superficial manner, but all it ends up doing is making it hard to see where your implementation of one interface ends and another starts.

(I use VSCode in case anyone knows a way to do it in any language)

> Within JS frameworks and libraries, there has been a large amount of experimentation across different ways to represent this binding, and experience has shown the power of one-way data flow in conjunction with a first-class data type representing a cell of state or computation derived from other data, now often called "Signals".