Not only for a surprisingly long time, but also in surprisingly good condition. For example at Vindolanda on Hadrian's Wall archeologists have found not one or two, or even ten but over 5000 amazingly preserved Roman shoes that were apparently thrown away into the fortress's moat and survived buried in the mud <https://www.vindolanda.com/Blog/the-curators-favourite-shoes>.
Hilariously they're never found a pair of shoes, only singles. So that's why they think they were thrown away as rubbish, because one shoe broke so they threw it in the ditch. In the museum on site there's a fantastic "wall of shoes" on display where you can see the amazing leatherwork from 2000 years ago <https://www.thehistoryblog.com/archives/37305>.
My prior understanding was that before the industrial revolution dramatically reduced the labor costs, clothing was expensive. Most people only owned two or three outfits, and replacing one would cost a month's wages sort of expensive.
How could one afford to throw away a perfectly good non-matching shoe?
That’s very interesting. Most systems I know would pick the highest versions allowed by the ranges. In maven and gradle, for example, at least by default they choose the highest versions allowed. Even if no version range is used, it picks the highest choice even across major versions, which I always thought was completely broken. What does go do if you have two transitive dependency versions whose allowed major is different?
In some sense, Go does not allow you to change the major version. Packages with the same name but different major versions are treated as different packages.
Javalin was inspired by https://sparkjava.com/ which was inspired by Sinatra (which I think also inspired Express?).
Anyway, libraries like this were only really feasible after Java 8 because of the reliance on lambdas. Having to instantiate anonymous nested classes for every "function" was a total pain before that.
i mean, it follows the java philosophy (preseving backward compat). theyve done great work improving java. but i see no reason to use it over scala where i get better features, its more like a java 2.0
Then don't. You can use Scala to your heart's content. No one is stopping you.
I had to work on a Scala codebase at some point, and I thought it horrible. I judge a language on how easy it allows you to create an unreadable mess. Scala makes it incredibly easy. And the people that enjoy Scala seem to like "unreadable messiness" as a feature.
I found it fun to learn the basics, and it was interesting to think of problems from a FP approach, but it is never something I would use in the real world.
I vastly prefer Java. The features it imported from Scala were fine, made the language better. It doesn't need to import everything.
Usually someone is stopping you, unless this is a hobby project. At least Scala can use Java libs so you aren't stopped by stuff not being available for it. But yeah I would never use it.
If you want to see what it looks like when you actually embed Datalog in your language, have a look at Flix: https://flix.dev/
(Select the "Usinag Datalog..." example in the code sample dropdown)
The Rust code looks completely "procedural"... it's like building a DOM document using `node.addElement(...)` instead of, say, writing HTML. People universally prefer the declarative alternative given the choice.
Young people are always the ones protesting against whatever they consider the currently big injustices. They rarely achieve something, but I think it’s great that they do anyway. It shapes their priorities and experiences. In just 20 years, they will be the ones governing and by that time they will have the chance to see whether they were right about whatever they wanted. Most likely they will learn that what looked like the end of the world back then turned out to be just another overblown issue which eventually sorted itself out. And they will go on to mostly perpetuate the status quo with just a few changes that happen gradually, like the acceptance of LGBT and elimination of most institutional racism in my lifetime.
When I was young we all thought that in the future , there would be too many people on the planet and not enough food for everyone. Job prospects were low due to tremendous competition as baby boomers made sure there had never been so many young people before. Some people believed pollution would get so bad that water would become as valuable as gold. This sounds ridiculous now but was dead serious back then.
This assumes the world is still trending in a positive direction. I'm not convinced of that anymore. The scientific consensus is climate change will get worse and make things hard on human civilization. Doesn't need to be the worst case scenario. Looking at geopolitics, we see a rise in authoritarianism and a breakdown in the western liberal order since WW2. Also a rise in the popularity of the far right, and some of the gains for LGBT and against institutional racism are being reversed. Wealth disparity is also increasing, so is polarization. We can't know whether there is a global conflict around the corner. It happened twice before. There were many positive people in the roaring 20s.
As for environment degradation in general, just because prior predictions were wrong doesn't mean the biosphere isn't still headed in the wrong direction for sustainability. Maybe we have the right governance and economics to adapt in time, but that's not a guarantee.
Being positive about everything seems like a really privileged position. It also maintains the status quo. If you're Ukrainian, how positive would you feel about your country's future? How positive is Europe about NATO and it's future with the US right about now. How are Canadians feeling about their neighbor to the South? Are they confident future US elections will self-correct?
Maybe over the long term it all works itself out and human progress continues to the stars or whatever. Or maybe we're going to be part of a Great Filter intelligent species face because of short sightedness and powerful technologies they unleash. Or maybe we'll just muddle along with some gains and then losses. Civilizations rise and fall, we really don't know how positive the future will be.
There are always people convinced that everything is dire. When I was a teen the popular one was that working for any kind of future goal was pointless because there was going to be a nuclear war that destroyed humanity.
There have always been wars and skirmishes around the world. Ukraine and Gaza are today's. There will be others tomorrow. Different tribes of humans just don't get along, never have.
If you think the environment is bad now, you should have seen it in the 1970s. Chemicals dumped everywhere, rivers on fire, cities choked in smog.
But the long term trend is always positive. Things are better now for more people than they ever have been.
I'll never forget one of my freshman "intro to engineering" courses in college the professor spent probably 15 min on the very first day going on about peak oil and how we were all doomed. He said this to a class full of kids enthusiastic about their future who want to build and make the world a better place. To this day, it was the single most toxic thing i've ever experienced and this was in the mid/late 1990's! If only one kid took his brain/soul poison to heart it would be a tragedy.
There's a middle ground between doomerism apathy and optimistic status quo that problems aren't that bad so business as usual. People become pessimistic when they see societal structures that prevent actions dealing with serious problems. You don't have any justification or saying the long term trend is always positive. The future has many possibilities, not all good. The human past is a mixed bag. Trends are trends until they're not. Past wrong predictions are not guarantees those or similar predictions won't come true in the future.
We really don't know that democracy will always prevail, that capitalism is sustainable in the long term, and that our current global civilization is immune to collapse. We don't know there will never be a nuclear war or that climate change won't hit the wrong tipping point. We don't know that humanity's future will continue to be better off indefinitely.
I agree, we don't know. But you can orient your life around the negative, find every excuse for why you are not succeeding or happy, spend too much time complaining about it all, and never make any progress. Or you can assume that things will work out eventually, pursue your goals, and probably end up in a better place.
> We don't know that humanity's future will continue to be better off indefinitely.
Right. We don't. And we never did. What I was saying is that when I was young, there was plenty of reason to believe everything would go to hell soon... and we were wrong, things got a lot better. There's just no way to know.
The last Romans living in the Roman Empire in 400AD may have also concluded that their problems would eventually be solved and they would continue thriving, just like they had for a thousand years. But they would be wrong. Just go back to 100AD and they would be mostly right: they still had a good 300 years in front of them (so they would never see a collapse, nor their children and grandchildren).
So yeah, eventually things will undoubtedly take a very negative turn. The question really is, will that be in 10, 100 or 1000 years? You don't know, I don't know. But given the above , I think it's fair to conclude that by being positive you're almost always correct.
This is a repeating cycle however. The boomers where all hippies riding the wave of a future utopia where everyone is making art and dancing with each other all day. Screw the man, grass and love all day!
Getting older what I have realized is that the enthusiasm of the youth is born from the lack of experience, lack of responsibility, lack of anything to lose, and a position to really only gain from any changes. When you are young you are largely a spectator to the game, and just like any other game, your views will change when you become a player instead of an armchair expert.
Funny how managers get blamed for both wanting new things and for not wanting new things. In the Java 6 days every dev wanted to upgrade to 7 and later 8… but the meme was that their manager wouldn’t ever let them.
I did the same thing, but implemented my site generator in Go.
My site has grown by a lot over the years, but I can still build it from scratch (from MD files, HTML snippets and static files) in less than one second!
Also have a RSS feed generator and it can highlight code in most programming languages, which is important to me as I write posts on many languages.
I did try Hugo before I went on to implement my own, and I got a few things from Hugo into mine, but Hugo just looked like far too overengineered for what I wanted (essentially, easy templating with markdown as the main language but able to include content from other files either in raw HTML or also markdown, with each file being able to define variables that can be used in the templating language which has support for the usual "expression language" constructs). I used the Go built-in parser for the expression language so it was super easy to implement it!
reply