Wait, you can't be saying that TypeScript doesn't have a much more powerful type system than Go.
AGDTs, mapped types, conditional types, template literal types, partial higher-kinded types, and real inference on top of all that.
It had one of the most fully loaded type systems out there while the Go team was asking for community examples of where generics might be useful because they're not sure it might be worth it.
Did you miss the comment where they said, "We’re still planning to address this within the next few months."?
Just because your niche issue isn't resolved, it is kind of a jerk move to blast them on HN especially when they've recently replied saying the issue is on their radar.
In less popular open source projects this is what drives devs to abandon them.
Starship is going to launch the next gen Starlink satellites which SpaceX desperately needs to get in the air as with 5 million subscribers their service is being over saturated around the world. Especially in the developing world and many other places where Starlink hands down beats terrestrials offerings.
In terms of Elon's contribution, you couldn't be more wrong. It was Elon's decision to pursue Starlink - a business model that had bankrupted all previous companies that attempted it. Elon's decision to pursue reusability which made Starlink feasible. Elon's decision to fire all the upper management of Starlink when the program wasn't going well - and in under a year of that decision had completely redesigned satellites in orbit. And now it's Elon's decision to pursue Starship that is a money furnace, but if it pays off Starlink 3.0 could bring in an order of magnitude more money than it does now.
The same high risk, high reward methodology with a good dose of micro-management is how he's brought six distinct companies to multi billion dollar valuations. And how he's succeeded despite the incessant reporting of his or his companies imminent failure.
High risk high reward doesn't always pay off. Sometimes you gotta swallow a Cybertruck, or a $44 bln Twitter acquisition, or a high-margin Nvidia-fuelled AI datacenter, or a political lobbying shitstorm. All of which fall squarely in the lap of Mr. Musk as the adamant leader pulling the strings.
If you're correct and Elon is to be credited with these administrative successes, then turnabout is fair play in assessing his entirely unnecessary business strategies. Let's not fool ourselves into thinking Tesla would be undervalued if Elon hadn't bought Twitter. I heard the "underrated genius" shtick when Jobs died, and then every subsequent biography echoed his personal struggles and failures he hid to prop up his cult of personality.
Twitter is once again worth $44 billion which arguably was an inflated price at the time of purchase. Tesla is a trillion dollar company. xAI is reportedly at $120 billion.
Idk man, big picture, I see nothing, but success with the media focusing on just the speed bumps along the way
- Ousted from Paypal for pure incompetence. Made money anyway from vested stock riding the dot-com bubble;
- Bought his way into Tesla then engaged in historical revisionism to paint himself a "founder". Tesla is a weird company because it defies any fundamentals. It seems to be valued between $500k and $1M per car sold in a year, which is just ludicrous. Tesla, as a company, has only survived by government largesse, be they carbon tax credits or the DOE loan in the late 2000s that saved Tesla from bankruptcy.
The only thing propping up Tesla now is import bans on Chinese EVs. Tesla isn't a car copmpany or an energy company. It's a proxy for investing in Elon directly. When Elon's relationship with the administration inevitably sours, Tesla's fortunes will sink as well. European Tesla sales have already dropped ~50% due to brand damage. The admin has cancelled an EV credit program that Tesla relied upon.
- SpaceX. This is a success. I still contend SpaceX succeeded in spite of Elon, not because of him;
- SolarCity. Failure. This became a recurring trend as SolarCity ended up owing a lot of money to SpaceX so the Tesla buyout was basically Elon using one of his companies to rescue another of his companies that owed a ton of money to yet another of his companies;
- Twitter. This one is hilarious because he completely overpaid for it. It seems like he was goaded into buying it by Peter Thiel and tried to get out of the deal until the Delaware Chancery Court forced him to complete the sale. By all accounts its lost 70-85% of its $44B purchase price. Elon ended up raising a bunch of money for xAI and basically used that to buy out his bad investment in TWitter, which for anyone else would be corporate fraud on a massive scale.
And what does Elon do all day anyway? Because it seems all he does is pretend to be a gamer and tweets nonstops. When does he actually manage any of these companies? In fact, his tweeting actually hurts his companies, Tesla in particular.
I'm honestly surprised there's still anyone who clings to the myth of Elon given all the evidence we have to the contrary.
Electric cars are mainstream now. Reusable rockets are real. Twitter won an election and spawned XAI. Elon is the richest man in the world. Yeah bro, he's a moron. Sure.
Tesla was almost bankrupt when Musk went to the Department of Energy Loan Office and said he had an investment from Mercedes to get $465 million dollar loan to save the company. That singular act was why you even hear about Elon today. Without the loan, he would not have gotten the Fremont factory and project WhiteStar would have been dead.
Without that loan, Musk couldn't use his wealth to reinvest into SpaceX and also would have had a damaged reputation and credibility. SpaceX would have survived, but it's development would have been much much slower. You wouldn't have Falcon Heavy and Starlink, and Starship today.
So thank your government folks for creating both the electric vehicle market and private space market! Without the government creating these markets, there would be no richest man Musk today. So thank the ATVM program authored by Senator Stabenow and NASA's COTS program. The point here is to illustrate the huge amount of power the government has to pick winners and losers. That it is the government that creates markets to play in and money to play with.
C# can turn lambdas into expression trees at runtime allowing libraries like EF to transform code like `db.Products.Where(p => p.Price < 100).Select(p => p.Name);` right to SQL by iterating the structure of that code. JavaScript ORMs would be revolutionized if they had this ability.
Good answer. To elaborate on it and provide examples.
In languages that don't have expression inspection capabilities you have to replace the `(p) => p.Price < 100` part with something that is possible for the language to inspect.
Normally it's strings or something using a builder pattern.
The last comment thread by agocke is interesting. I've thought before that it's unfortunate that LINQ and expression trees were implemented before the move to Roslyn, because if they'd been implemented afterwards they could maybe have just directly used the same object model that the compiler itself uses, which could make it more sustainable to keep them in sync with language changes.
Java has two somewhat related projects in this space, and it does add a substantial cost to language changes (assuming you commit to keep expression trees up to date). https://openjdk.org/projects/babylon/ is the most interesting to me, as a linq+++ potentially.
Yes, being on both ecosystems most of the time, means I get to have lots of nice toys both ways, with them counter influencing each other all these years.
Not easily. There's no built-in way to access the abstract syntax tree (or equivalent) of a function at run time. The best thing you can do is to obtain the source code of a function using `.toString()` and then use a separate JS parser to process it, but that's not a very realistic option.
There is a limited form of such "expression rewriting" using tagged template strings introduced in ES2015. But it wouldn't be particularly useful for the ORM case.
Right up top. The service for alerts no longer works 24/7 so this happened when they were down for their daily window. Therefore the cuts are directly responsible.
Looks like Apple might be prioritizing gaming for the next gen Vision devices? Hopefully, as I know many, myself included that passed on the Vision because the gaming support wasn't there. Price was never an issue.
This to me smells of desperation - not so much as "prioritising gaming" and more "prioritising anyone making any kind of content at all please please please someone make something for our device".
It no more smells of desperation than when Apple contributed modern ScreenCaptureKit support to OBS Studio. They want great experiences for their own platforms and sometimes that means reaching out to other projects.
It's true that the Vision Pro hasn't seen the uptake that Apple's other platforms did at launch, like the iPhone, iPad, Apple Watch, etc. — but it's nearsighted to think that Apple can't play a long game. It has the patience (and money) to play it all the way to the eventual release of their glasses; by that time, the platform will already have plenty of fantastic software ported from iOS and, eventually, other platforms through ventures like this.
I think there is "playing the long game" and there is "flogging a dead horse".
I still can't believe that both apple and meta bet the farm on VR and screwed up so spectacularly. It was fairly clear that VR was never going to be mainstream for the same reasons that 3D movies and TVs vanished after all that fanfare and marketing a few years ago: people don't want to wear the glasses, and they don't want to pay extra either. We've been there and tried this - people are happy with 2D screens and don't see any real benefits of 3D glasses/headsets worth paying for (...apart from the nerdfactor).
Sure there might be some sort of market for "smart glasses" and people are continually releasing various iterations of those (and I'd be up for a pair too FWIW), but if the vision pro is any indication of what the tech is capable of today, we're a very very long way away from normal-glasses-style form factor units (i.e. size, weight, battery life, discreetness, price, nausea etc).
Tl;Dr - nice try doing something new, but if I were an apple investor I'd prefer they went back to what they knew and not waste further billions upon billions "playing the long game" on a dead-end because they can't accept they made a mistake.
500$ is a toy most upper middle class families can afford. That's the Meta Quest 3.
3500$ will even have someone making 200k plus pause to think if they really need it.
Not to mention the Vision Pro looks much more fragile. Looks like it'll slip off my face and shatter.
I'm cool with wasting $500, but I could do a lot of things of $3,500.That's a round trip flight to Thailand and a nice hotel room, you might be able to fit in a trip to Paris too.
I think we’ve forgotten over the years just how expensive tech can be. The original iMac was 1299 at launch, inflation adjusted that’s $2500 today, for what even at the time was considered a cut down machine. The iBook would launch the next year for $1599, or about $3k today. Is the AVP at least as interesting of a product to buyers as the original iMac or iBook was in 1998? Bear in mind 1998 Apple was just barely holding on after years of mismanagement, still was running Mac OS 8 and neither the iPod juggernaut nor OSX were anywhere on the horizon for people to suspect that Apple would even still be in business or supporting their proprietary computers in a few years.
Perhaps more apt, the original Macintosh released at $2495, or a whopping $7,500 inflation adjusted. Now I’m not thinking that the AVP is necessarily going to change the computing world the way the Macintosh did, but surely its novelty and potential fits somewhere between an iMac and an original Macintosh right?
So instead of building for a platform that has a low barrier of entry and millions upon millions of users, developers should spend time in Apple’s expense plantation.
All in the hopes of sharecropping on the Vision Store.
Honestly I want an open source headset I can run my own code on , that’s what I’m waiting for
The only way to officially distribute apps for iOS devices is via the App Store, giving 30% off top to Apple. If that's not sharecropping I don't know what is
You’re not looking very hard then because there are loads of new games released both with VR support and also exclusively for devices like the Oculus Quest.
What we’ve seen less of is AAA games bolt on VR support as an afterthought - and the reason for that is because it’s almost always a terrible way to play a game that was originally designed to be played with a keyboard and mouse, or traditional game controller.
My fear is that they won't treat godot first class and release updates for unity first.
That kind of first class support would be required for me to switch from unity.
This makes no sense. I build a great product. How the hell am I supposed to tell anyone about it outside of my immediate friends and family? Am I supposed to rely on the network effect to reach an audience? That sounds insane.
Capitalism depends on advertising to let people know of the product or service that is more cost effective than existing solutions. The advertising budget is dependent on knowing your product is actually good enough to justify the expense. Without advertising, competition itself doesn't work.
Well, personally, I think you shouldn’t even tell your friends and family. That kind of “native advertising” is ruining human relationships. People should stumble upon your product. If someone mentions it to someone else, that alone should be grounds to shutter your company. Even so-called “catchy domain names” are a deep evil that we didn’t have in the heyday of the US: the ‘70s. Your product should be named exactly what it does and your company should be named as the concatenation of its products.
In this way we can eliminate manipulative marketing and rely purely on quality.
Should parents even be allowed to name children or should the state choose a descriptive name based on their appearance and behaviour? Hard to tell but I think we need to think long and hard about manipulative naming in more than just the corporate sphere.
I actually agree. Telling friends and family will get you more of a 'flash in the pan' response. They are not content creators or influencers. You need to do advertising to figure out if your product/business is even economically feasible.
For example, run an ad campaign on Google, figure out your CPC (cost per customer). See if that is even below your LTV (lifetime value per customer) plus operating expenses. And then tweak all the variables in your product and campaign to actually create some sort of sustainable business flywheel.
Having an amazing product and 'waiting' for your network to spread the word to all potential customers.. it's absurd to think that would work. It's hard enough even with big ad campaigns to reach potential customers.
>If someone mentions it to someone else, that alone should be grounds to shutter your company.
I don't agree. It should depend on whether such a mention leads to promotion of the product. We are not barbarians to limit freedom of speech.
After any mention of a product by its user, a court should be held to decide whether this mention was advertising. Because even though the user received a benefit from purchasing the product from the company (otherwise he would not have bought it and would not have become a user), advertising also implies promotion, so the court must first determine whether this mention was made in such a way that it could potentially induce the purchase of the product by other people, and only then close the company.
And it doesn't even have to be a mention. Advertising is really mean, like a couple of days ago my girlfriend ate a pudding right in front of me. And it was the last pudding, and she ate it so well that I wanted one too. And you'll never guess what I bought at the store today! Yes, that same pudding. Unfortunately, we are vulnerable to advertising even when we are fully aware of its destructive nature.
This is one of the reasons I think food should all have the same packaging color and consistency. If everything was a grey paste that came in an unlabeled brown plastic-lined cardboard box your girlfriend wouldn't be able to manipulate you like that.
I hope like the previous 20 years, his companies just get more and more successful. I like electric cars, and rockets, and AI, and tunnels, and brain implants, and less government spending, and real people with flaws.
