fridental
Joined 13 years ago
Joined 13 years ago
1) They do not publish rationale of why the world needs yet another protocol / language / framework on the homepage. It is hidden in https://typeschema.org/history
2) In the history page, they confuse strongly typed and statically typed languages. I have a prejudice about people doing this.
3) The biggest challenge about data models is not auto-generated code (that many people would avoid in principle anyway), but compressed, optimized wire serialization. So you START with selecting this for your application (eg. AVRO, CapnProto, MessagePack etc) and then use the schema definition language coming with the serialization tool you've chosen.
LINQ: exists
Splunk query language: exists
KQL: exists
MongoDB query language: exists
PRQL: exists
The real estate listed there is never a bespoke design for you and your family. In some locations, there are plenty of affordable homes so you actually can choose one with the layout nearest to your goals.
In the most cases though, affordable homes are rare so people don't really care about the current layout: they will buy any home and remodel it in according to their tastes.
To estimate the remodeling costs, it is better to work with the bare, empty layout plans, not cluttered with furniture and 3D effects, and having all measures specified.
These features provide for more safety, and at the same time, they reduce productivity by forcing the developer to statically type everything.
The question is then why do we need to transpile to Go, a language with GC and slower than Rust?
If we already agree on super-safe static typing, why not just use Rust? Are there any libraries in Go that are not available or of worse quality in Rust?
You assume that people drive BEV as often and as far as they drive ICE. They don't.
You assume people always charge BEV from the grid. People can also use solar panels.
You assume gasoline forever has to be fossil. It does not need to be.
You forget the carbon footprint of manufacturing of either kind of cars.
You assume all people can afford buying new cars. They don't.
You assume there will be as big second hand market for BEV and it is now for ICE. It won't be, because of the battery degradation.
You assume that current grid can handle simultaneous loading of all BEV. It can't, and you don't include the carbon footprint of grid extension and increase of the generation power in your calculation.
And last but now least, a typical green propaganda trick, you are only calculating one variable and ignoring negative effects in another variables: - people waste more time waiting for charging - people forced to switch to inferious means of transportation - people reducing their leisure travels - a two-class mobility with the lower class of poor people living in apartments without own charging possibility who cannot afford a BEV or are forced spending hours per day charging at public stations, and the higher class of home owners with solar panels, charging their cars for free - higher prices for taxi, delivery services (and therefore all retail prices), facility management, mobile nurses, construction worker and other people who drive more miles per day as one over-night charge can give. - special service vehicles like firefighting trucks, police cars, military vehicles, super-heavy trucks etc. cannot use fragile battery energy only, and need to use gasoline, which becomes very expensive and hard to get, if 99% of other cars are BEV and so all gas stations are closed.
So you should either stop publishing shit or invest a lot more time in your calculation.