Interesting take, how is optional functionality annoying? Isn't the fact that it's just sugar a huge benefit? Us old timers can simply stick to what we're familiar with.
Because unless you are the only person maintaining your codebase other people in your organization will start using the cool new syntax sugar and optional functionality. So you will be forced to deal with it as it starts showing up in your codebase.
> Isn't the fact that it's just sugar a huge benefit?
My main gripe is that I cannot remember what is allowed and not allowed between multiple versions of the same language. On a daily basis I hop between apps versioned in .NET Framework 4.8 all the way to .NET 10. I have to constant remember, are nullable types allowed here? What about 'new(); vs. new Object();', new collection syntax, new switch syntax, new extensions syntax, etc..
Plus, I just find it obnoxious that the same thing can be written so many different ways. I can think of 7 ways to assign a new empty List<T>.
List<T> foo = new List<T>();
var foo = new List<T>();
List<T> foo = new();
List<T> foo = new List<T> { };
var foo = new List<T> { };
List<T> foo = [];
var foo = (List<T>)[];
There are probably more that I am forgetting. What irks me most is Java is older than C#, and from what I can remember, it is not nearly this ridiculous in terms of syntactical sugar. So, what is the true benefit behind all this sugar? It hardly saves any keystrokes in the age of autocomplete in IDEs.
I am inclined to believe most of the sugar is an attempt to make the language appeal to a newer generations of programmers. But I would argue features are more attractive than syntactical sugar. I believe Rust is truly impressive language. In my opinion, its syntax is uglier than sin, but that does not seem to deter many from using Rust.
> Some of those ways come from just plain object initialisers. Which are amazing and sorely needed in Java.
They really aren't, and they are IMHO an antipattern since they break encapsulation. One might argue that encapsulation doesn't matter with mere data classes, but Java will cater to that use case by introducing withers.
> They really aren't, and they are IMHO an antipattern since they break encapsulation.
They don't. Java had to come up with the extremely verbose builder pattern for the exact same thing. And withers are basically the same tedious manual builder pattern, just with a different name.
I literally could not tell you what my own wife or children's faces look like from memory. The feeling of sandpaper, I can basically relive it 1:1. Same with music, I can all but hear it. So there does seem to be quite the spectrum, even if it's all imaginary.
Did you catch that we can't LAN with it? Might seem small, but that's how some of us still choose to play. Being able to host on our own terms is kind of the main reason we still play the ancient versions...
Why does this always have to be binary when any amount of gun control is suggested? It's simple math: if me didn't manufacture so many guns and didn't make them so readily available then there will inherently be less danger... this isn't even debatable!
That is obviously true... but also a fairy tale hypothetical, and we are in the real world. So the question is, what's the solution, right now? Not 200 years ago.
A fairy tale? The UK, Australia, and Brazil all have something to say about that claim. In developed countries, the United States is an extreme outlier so why pretend this is a completely unapproachable problem?
Our constitution itself gives us a blueprint because it states, in no uncertain terms, a "well-regulated militia"; not "each individual citizen".
You know, the human beings eligible to join the previously mentioned militia. The idea wasn't "everyone has the right to openly carry", the way it has been perverted recently, it was that you were individually responsible for the acquisition and maintenance of your own armaments. The militia act of 1792 was passed almost immediately after the second amendment was ratified, codifying what I just claimed.
That's the fourth amendment, not the second, so it's quite the leap to go from "I have the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures" to "I have the right to personally bear arms against the government to protect my property.".
And yes, I'm absolutely certain. Go ahead and test your theory against the American government and I'll wait to see you on the news.
Not the OP, but if I had to guess, they probably imagine that it means the nation as a whole, embodied by its government. You know, as in “The People’s Republic of North Korea.”
(If anyone wants to alter the 2nd so it’s more in line with their views, there’s a clear legal path. Pass an Amendment or call a Constitutional convention.)
The UK, Australia, and Brazil have significantly less firearms (which makes gun control a million times easier), and are not constitutionally granted the right to bear them (which makes gun control unconstitutional). If you go ahead start a new country with no guns and implement strict gun control, sure, it would probably have less gun deaths, but that's irrelevant to the American policy debate. Criminals in America will have ridiculously easy access to guns for a long time, and further restrictions on ownership will only decrease law-abiding gun-ownership rates.
Virtually everyone is, including those who oversimplify and go too far with words like "abolish". The problem we have right now is that "successful policing" is currently defined in such a way that there's almost zero accountability for those who enforce the law.
With the so-called justice system the US has got -- which is a mixture of inane proceduralism with senseless brutality -- I'm very much not for "successful policing." I would be, as I think that every person in the abstract would be, if there were comprehensive justice reform and tort reform.
Yeah, so you fit in exactly the category I described. Assuming a better system then almost no one would argue against it, but our system is so tragically flawed that many conclude we don't need a justice system at all.
I have no affiliation whatsoever with any AI company, nor any formal education outside high school, for what it's worth. Simply being curious and persistent can get you quite far in my anecdotal experience.
Is it truly bias though? As others have pointed out in the thread the list of things considered left right now are essentially arbitrary. "Woke" has been applied to basically anything and everything that a particular party disagrees with, so much so that it's effectively meaningless at this point.
It's a bit ironic that the site is called unslop while the post was clearly authored by Claude. All the claims about "so I did X" end up reading as quite disingenuous because there's absolutely no disclaimer whatsoever that an AI wrote the article.
HN has a strong bias against anything AI authored, so in the future be sure to write your posts by hand if you plan to submit them here. Even editing the post with AI will tend to get you in trouble. But yes, at the very least you should declare when an AI is being used.
An unfortunate confounder to an otherwise interesting experiment.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for taking advantage of AIs and would never begrudge their usage. The problem I have here is with the site calling itself unslop and the post claiming "I" everywhere. Claude didn't simply assist, it wrote almost the whole article as far as I can tell. The human in the loop even went out of their way to ensure that no emdashes leaked through...
Of course. I was just adding a little bit of context to possibly help OP in the future.
Using AI at all is a minefield when you're trying to make a social media post. Better to just avoid it entirely, or run it through AI and then cherrypick a few edits that you manually type in your own voice.
reply