> It seems the Go development team has a high bar for adding features to the language. The end result is a language that forces you to write a lot of boilerplate code to implement logic that could be more succinctly expressed in another language.
Being able to implement logic more succinctly is not always a good thing. Take error handling syntactic sugar for example. Consider these two snippets:
let mut file = File::create("foo.txt")?;
and: f, err := os.Create("filename.txt")
if err != nil {
return fmt.Errorf("failed to create file: %w", err)
}
The first code is more succinct, but worse: there is no context added to the error (good luck debugging!).Sometimes, being forced to write code in a verbose manner makes your code better.
f = open('foo.txt', 'w')
is even more succinct, and the exception thrown on failure will not only contain the reason, but the filename and the whole backtrace to the line where the error occurred.Generation Loss – JPEG, WebP, JPEG XL, AVIF : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7UDJUCMTng
(Also I am highly skeptical of the importance of these generation loss tests.)
I'm glad they're doing this, and it's an unpleasant surprise that they didn't already work this way. I don't understand why they allow mutable releases.
I think individuals who get comfortable in their jobs don’t like automation arriving at their station because it upends the order of things just as they were feeling comfortable and stable. Being adaptable now is more important than ever.
> Products don't get better either, but that's more of a "shareholder value" problem than it is a specific technology problem.
This is broadly false. Your laptop is unquestionably better because it was constructed with the help of automated CNC machines and PCB assembly as opposed to workers manually populating PCBs.
Some companies can try to use automation to stay in place with lower headcount, but they’ll be left behind by competition that uses automation to move forward. Once that leap happens it becomes accepted as the new normal, so it never feels like automation is making changes.
- Setup a massive array of antennas in space for reception only
- Try to decode their radio traffic and understand how they are exchanging information
- Steal their their knowledge and use it to advance human race forward.
- Reduce all our electromagnetic emissions to minimum to deny them the same advantage. Forbid anyone from sending signal towards them so we have time to technologically catch up to them without them noticing.
Any kind of contact will ends up in abysmal disaster as we have seen in the past, when advanced civilization shown up on shores of less advanced one.
I'm not convinced at all by most of the heuristic-driven ARIA scanning tools. I don't want to know if my app appears to have the right ARIA attributes set - I want to know if my features work for screenreader users.
What I really want is for a Claude Code style agent to be able to drive my application in an automated fashion via a screenreader and record audio for me of successful or failed attempts to achieve goals.
Think Playwright browser tests but for popular screenreaders instead.
Every now and then I check to see if this is a solved problem yet.
I think we are close. https://www.guidepup.dev/ looks extremely promising - though I think it only supports VoiceOver on macOS or NVDA on Windows, which is a shame since asynchronous coding agent tools like Codex CLI and Claude Code for web only run Linux.
What I haven't seen yet is someone closing the loop on ensuring agentic tools like Claude Code can successfully drive these mechanisms.