laumars

Few people were running 800x600 by the time VB6 came out. I doubt many people were even using 1024x768.

Back then I was running 1280x1024 on a 17" CRT. Which was still modest for the era.

I'd consider VB6 and Delphi peak IDE for the era. With Turbo Vision for the 80s.

>you are simply to soft >don't take everything as a personal attack.

You’re taking personal shots at someone, then ridiculing them for choosing not to engage with you? All because they thought your hero was a bad ambassador?

From the outside, you’re coming across as the more easily offended.

I never knew this existed until today. 1980s me would have loved this.

The pro-surveillance advocates are the ones in government or running these companies. They can put rules in place to exempt themselves from being watched by their own hardware.

To be fair to Theo, it wasn't the language choice that he rejected. It was the effort to maintain a port that is both niche and has edge-case incompatibilities with GNU coreutils.

If I were maintaining OpenBSD, I would have rejected this port for the same reasons too.

This makes me seriously want to write Haskell again

> You are comparing Go to Python, JS, and C++, arguably the three most complex languages to build.

No, I'm comparing to more than a dozen different languages that I've used commercially. And there were direct references there to Perl, Java, Pascal, procedural SQL, and many, many others too.

> There are languages out there that are easy to build, have a reasonable std lib

Sure. And the existence of them doesn't mean Go isn't also simple.

> and don't offload the complexity of the world onto the programmer.

I disagree. Every language makes tradeoffs, and those tradeoffs always end up being complexities that the programmer has to negotiate. This is something I've seen, without exception, in my 40 years of language agnosticism and part-time language designer.

As someone who's written commercial software in well over a dozen different languages for nearly 40 years, I completely disagree.

Go has its warts for sure. But saying the simplicity of Go is "just virtue signaling" is so far beyond ignorant that I can only conclude this opinion of yours is nothing more than the typical pseudo-religious biases that lesser experienced developers smugly cling to.

Go has one of the easiest tool chains to get started. There's no esconfig, virtualenv and other bullshit to deal with. You don't need a dozen `use` headers just to define the runtime version nor trust your luck with a thousand dependencies that are impossible to realistically audit because nobody bothered to bundle a useful standard library with it. You don't have multi-page indecipherable template errors, 50 different ways to accomplish the same simple problem nor arguments about what subset of the language is allowed to be used when reviewing pull requests. There isn't undefined behaviour nor subtle incompatibilities between different runtime implementations causing fragmentation of the language.

The problem with Go is that it is boring and that's boring for developers. But it's also the reason why it is simple.

So it's not virtue signaling at all. It's not flawless and it's definitely boring. But that doesn't mean it isn't also simple.

Edit: In case anyone accuses me of being a fanboy, I'm not. I much preferred the ALGOL lineage of languages to the B lineage. I definitely don't like a lot of the recent additions to Go, particularly around range iteration. But that's my personal preference.

Not just using it daily, but I have scripts I've written literally a decade ago, and which haven't been modified at all, which still work just as well as the day I wrote them. Whereas there's a whole plethora of Python projects I've had to abandon in that time because they were never ported to Python 3.

I didn’t read the GPs comment as a justification.

That’s only a modern day theory and feels somewhat retrofitted interpretation of the facts (from what I’ve seen when researching this myself). There are various spellings of the surname, since names often didn’t have a formal spelling in the early days of book keeping. And some of the spellings begun with a ‘T’.

So the more likely scenario is the name was only picked because it sounded similar to their original German family name while being an English-styled spelling.

Given we are taking 30+ years ago though, the best we can do at this stage is speculate.

However even if the card game theory were true, it still doesn’t make Trump a powerful name in the U.K. because the fart connotation is still more prevalent.

I wasn’t judging anyone. I was just saying Rust isn’t exactly flying under the radar.

Where I live we also call it “trump”. Which is why many of us never understood why people would claim that Donald Trump has a “powerful name”.

However it did amuse use that a man full of hot air would be named after the expelling of warm but noxious air.