phyrog's comments

The blog is under a German domain, the company is from Malta. Why would they care about a US law again?

Not everything is a business, you know? As far as I know tangled is not one.

It may not have to scale, but being able to use the same hardware for more (different things) is nice nevertheless.

OpenObserve might be what you're looking for

Yeah, but then it is yet another layer of configuration slapped on top of the previous layer of configuration. That can't be the best solution, can it? Same thing for piping helm template through Kustomize.

In my book the main problem with Helm charts is that every customization option needs to be implemented by the chart that way. There is no way for chart consumer to change anything the chart author did not allow to be changed. That leads to these overly complex and config heavy charts people publish - just to make sure everything is customizable for consumers.

I'd love something that works more like Kustomize but with other benefits of Helm charts (packaging, distribution via OCI, more straight forward value interpolation than overlays and patches, ...). So far none have ticked all my boxes.

But that is exactly what slog provides? The a unified interface that can be implemented by other logger libraries. Yes the Logger itself is not the interface, but the Handler it is backed by is.

So a hand-wavy "look at the world bro" instead of actual metrics. Got it.

> I'm just commenting on what I hate about golang.

No you're not. You say Go (or a part of Go) is bad, which is vastly different. If you stuck to "I don't like it", you would not have gotten so much push back, but you insist in being right and everyone else is stupid and wrong.

Majority of what people? Get off your high horse, your opinion is not a fact. Give me objective metrics to measure how "good" a language or language feature is, otherwise you are just wrong.

I'm looking forward to trying out your own perfect language that is objectively the best for any use case ever and no one can find any faults with it. Because surely such a language exists.

> I don't think you realize there's stuff way better then go out there.

Every language makes trade-offs. For you the trade-off Go makes is bad. I disagree. I like some languages better in certain parts, while I prefer Go's solution in other parts. It's all preference, there is almost never an objective "better" or "worse" like you seem to think.

> Golang packages are poorly designed

Agree to disagree.

> that’s stupid because people don’t typically use folders as if they were packages. Folders are typically used just to categorize things of similar meaning or naming or whatever you want

You might do that. That does not mean everyone organizes things like this.

What your chicken/egg example fails to realize is that things rarely just belong in one category. Chickens can be animals or food.

To me it just sounds like you are trying to write another language while using Go. Of course you will see problems. Just as you would see problems trying to write Go code when using Java.

In the end it comes down to this: if the language does not fit your mental model on how to do things, don't use it. But don't go around shitting on the language just because you are used to using folders differently than other people. Using a language also means learning and using the conventions of that language.