I don't agree with this. Presumably this is going to be a long lived language. They should fix the problems as early as possible so that generations of developers don't have to keep reliving the same pain.
As painful as it is in the short run, I am inclined to agree with this.
A story I heard once that I love to retell is that after Stu Feldman wrote the first version of 'make' for Unix, he realized that the syntax was borderline unusable, but he didn't want to fix it because he already had 10 users.
I've also heard that Chris Lattner didn't want to release Swift when he did, but was pressured by Apple into doing so. There's no question in retrospect that it wasn't ready, and I think it's entirely fair to beat up on Apple for pushing it out too soon. Nonetheless, since it is out, I think they should do their best to get it right.
Why the tab in column 1? Yacc was new, Lex was brand new. I hadn't tried either, so I figured this would be a good excuse to learn. After getting myself snarled up with my first stab at Lex, I just did something simple with the pattern newline-tab. It worked, it stayed. And then a few weeks later I had a user population of about a dozen, most of them friends, and I didn't want to screw up my embedded base. The rest, sadly, is history.
Disclaimer: I'm purposefully stretching to come to this conclusion, think of it as me transcribing an idle thought
I think people are taking out their frustration with C++ on Swift by saying it's fine to churn the language so we don't end up with a mess like C++ because they just despise the way the past of C++ has marred the present by existing, no matter how hard the language is trying to be in the present.
They feel Swift should move fast and break things so that we don't have to live with the mistakes of the past like C++ does.
The problem is even if we think what Swift is doing is perfect and let it solidify, odds are in the future we'll still come to despise it, and the parts we despise will eventually be old and well used enough they can't reasonably be changed by breaking stuff, and then it will be time for a new language to repeat the cycle.
(Replace C++ with Java or some other older language as preferred)
I think his main complaint is that Apple should stop publishing sample code (which they update sporadically at best) in Swift when the language is changing so much. At WWDC this year I believe virtually all code shown on screen was Swift, but ObjC would have been fine for almost everything.
More broadly, I think Apple should have marketed Swift as "beta" until at least v3, to really make clear (especially to managers) what it means to have a language with constant source-breaking changes.
I think that's completely reasonable and maybe the article would have been better with the much more sensible complaint that an official Apple code sample last updated at the end of October last year doesn't work in un-obvious ways today. That's just sloppy and frustrating and shouldn't happen - at a minimum it should be marked (temporarily) obsolete.
Let's just say that we are all good human beings committed to making things better for all of us. Very politically active individuals with deep government experience and connections.
How the hell do we get the money out of politics and the democracy back in ?
The DNC also seems almost in a stalemate due to this cancer - under the survival pressure they evolved into a fundraising outfit beholden to big money, and they have not rallied at all post election defeat.
They don't seem to understand they can represent Dems and get funded in $27 increments... and win over large swathes of young supporters if they just change their mindset.
I think at this point the only hope to replace the old-timers with less-infected newcomers but that will take us to 2018, when we need a strong and vibrant and well organised opposition, urgently.
> How the hell do we get the money out of politics and the democracy back in ?
Don't take this negatively, but you lost your argument when you said "get funded in $27 increments." You are already going back to money.
Crowdfunding / crowd donation works really well when people are running for major elections like the Presidential election or the governor race. When it comes to your own district's representative, you can't find hundreds to fund them through crowd funding. You just can't for every representative. Maybe for NYC, but what about that rural area in Maine? You need to rely on big donators and getting money from your party. Where does your party money come from? Membership and donations. You don't actually need to go to the big corps because the people who are the most likely to donate to you are the locals, business owners who held prestige roles and titles in the community/district. They won't donate 1M but they will donate 10K, 20K by getting their uncles and aunts to send you checks.
Actually, little do some people know, Dem and GOP each has a building in D.C. where Congressmen and Congresswomen would sit in a designated cubicle cold calling voters. That's the worst kind of job one can get.
Also, don't ignore the older folks. Not every non-20-ish years old men and women voters voted Trump, there were plenty sided with Bernie Sanders, just to be fair and respectful.
Hello! I (as a non-politically-connected technologist) have been bouncing around ideas for how to become more active. Would you be amenable to my sending a note asking for advice?
> Let's just say that we are all good human beings committed to making things better for all of us.
If by all of us you mean the world then it would be nice to start with a change in US foreign policy. Less of "beacon of the free world" rhetoric and less "moral obligation" to fuck up the rest of the planet, please. You dropped way too much bombs on innocent people already.
Almost everyone agrees with the idea of hiring based on merit instead of prejudice. But I very often see diversity advocates attacking the idea of merit-based hiring. For example, making fun of people that use the word "meritocracy" has become a popular meme. Personally I'm not sure how to account for this discrepancy.
Perhaps because 'meritocracy' is sometimes advanced as an excuse for ignoring other factors, without the proponent investing the effort to actually use double-blind method for selecting among applicants to avoid the possibility of bias among hiring managers.
Surprising in the case of the Model S, especially as Tesla has previously bragged about crash test scores[0]. I wonder if the Model X really is the "safest SUV in history" as Tesla claims? It's worth noting that in the 2016 Tesla shareholder's meeting, Musk said that the discontinued Roadster was "completely unsafe".
Even modest cars like the Chevy Malibu and Ford Fusion manage perfect scores on the IIHS small overlap test. I expect the Tesla's heavy weight will help safety in the real world though.
I wonder if Tesla will respond with one of their trademark combative press releases?
