wbsgrepit's comments

My understanding is that beyond the examples you talk about that go is being used extensively in google as a backend glue language for automation and services.

https://talks.golang.org/2012/splash.article

At one point in our history, it was contrary to known and upheld belief that the world was round. Given your position would we have ever had the debate and changed popular belief considering it was absurd by its very nature?

Given that eating from the tree of knowledge is sin ...

=)

Yes, because it is imperative to teach and learn by rote. If any idea is commonly held to be true, there is no reason to have any discourse. Even for ideas that seem to be binary this is just ridiculous -- you will note that this position would preclude discussing topics and discoveries regarding a round earth, DNA, electricity, and many other understood "truths" over human history.

Discourse and unpopular ideas drive discovery and learning more than memorization ever will. It does not mean that unpopular views are "right" it means that the act of understanding, listening to other perspectives and being able to construct your own beliefs in that discourse is a net win and absolutely core to higher learning; even if the unpopular view is garbage.

The issue with this stance is that history has shown many times that unpopular views and lively debate leads to growth, understanding and knowledge.

You can have a "balanced viewpoint" and still have debates about "whether the moon is made of the body of Vince Foster or not." There are certain ideas that just don't belong in a university setting because they are bunk and this has nothing to do with diversity of opinion.

IMHO this concept falls on its own sword. What harm is there debating about the moon being made of Vince's body if there is a question in the forum? Does it harm the people that have solidified beliefs about it being false? The person who believes it to be possible? What is learning beyond discussing the possibilities, informing each other about beliefs, viewpoints and deductive reasoning leading to growth/questioning what is true and false and constructing and reconstructing your closely held beliefs.

Uniform thought begets uniform thought and does not foster growth. I shiver thinking about wonders/discoveries would have been lost if people in our history were afraid to discuss unpopular ideas and constructs; as it stands too many already have been.

It seems like a zero sum, the problem is that any real world project that starts off as vanilla without a framework is almost assured to mutate into its own framework as the complexity of the project matures. Most of the pain points and pleasure points that frameworks bring to the table are slowly replicated with self built devices.

So the real choice here is not vanilla vs framework but do you want to use someone's framework or build your own.

This. A large codebase without a framework almost always becomes a defacto framework; else it becomes too much technical debt and is rewritten in a framework. =)

Not to mention the spectrum between intuition/innuendo and flat out insider trading knowledge that is cornerstone to the market -- trading algorithms don't do well against this human factor.

There are protections to this type of abuse in just about every comercial parking system -- so much so it is not even listed in advantages/features for most of their marketing materials. It is commonly refereed to Single Entrance Gate or Stateful Egress; basically the card is tracked in a stateful database and is either in use (it has been used to enter but not yet to exit) or not in use (it has exited since its last entry). If you attempt to use the card for entry when it is in the "in use" state it will deny and log the action.

Edited to add: For the next common "game" on this line "why dont you just walk past and card swipe exit" you will note the cameras positioned at the card terminals at all of these lots for this issue. Basically they will have a record of: your license plates for the entry/exists (the sipes and video systems have timecodes that can be matched) and of your person walking by on foot to trigger the exit state.

Related, this is why manufacturer's coupons have changed in the last few years. It was previously possible to create a manufacturers coupon barcode for any UPC that would represent one of the standard discounts before GS1-128 including Buy 1 get 1. The new GS1 barcodes encode much more data that allows better fraud protection.

I think he is forgetting that the barcode is generated and exits not in a silo but with knowledge of a controller. I would be amazed if the system did not both track the barcode creation and exit events and trigger protocols on any outside system event.

Print out your card at home, park at lot, scan to checkout, your barcode is in one of three states: 1: Not valid because it has not been issued by the controller, 2: Valid and first use (you left before the other car on the lot with the duplicated barcode has exited), 3: Invalid because it has already been used on exit (the duplicate barcode has already left the lot).

In what scenario given an active controller that is not braindead would this give you any kind of advantage? You are more likely than not going to be in a situation where you trigger an alarm on exit.