I've worked worked developers that have a hardline against ORMs. I see lot of their points, especially around the performance of raw SQL. But I cannot get past how much boilerplate code that has be written over and over again. And then you have to test that boilerplate code. I find that most people are far more productive using an ORMs. To me this makes sense because it's less things to type. Less is often more.
We have services that don't ORMs and I have to wonder if it's worth the cost.
While I don't write a ton of "boilerplate", the primary thing for me is writing boilerplate, if necessary, is trivially easy. What's hard is debugging when problems arise, or trying to do some slightly more complicated join that isn't supported out of the box by your ORM tool of choice.
Basically, in my opinion ORMs just make the easy stuff slightly easier, but they make the hard stuff much harder, and when you're stressed out trying to fix some critical production DB query all they do is get in the way.
Note to others: Try not to defend yourself in an apology. Otherwise it ceases to become an apology, and instead becomes a list of reasons why there should be no accountability.
There is no team without him, you are aware of that, right? The core purpose of the FSF is to defend his achievements and to follow the path he laid out decades ago. He is not accused to be a toxic person, he is attacked on various angles by a mismatch of FUD, puritan toxicity and simple hate against unconventional people.
Sure, you can opt to distance from that, but what do you stand for then? Giving up against an irrational mob is not a legacy under which the FSF can prosper.
I also do hope that. It doesn't have to mean that without him at the helm or at the board the organization can not survive. But it can not survive without his philosophy. And for that it's important to create a path that defends him against the baseless reputational assaults, or it will be damaged as well. This statement does it, that way they can continue also after him - hopefully.
Toxicity isn't a binary thing - there's levels to it. If the benefits one can bring to a team outweigh their negative attributes, then you should let them on your team. As far as how to determine whether the good outweighs the bad, that's a different topic.
He brings a lot to the table, and I don't think he should have his work and life "cancelled" because some people disagree with his opinions...
Cancellation isn't a binary thing either, and I'm not sure anyone is suggesting that RMS's past contributions to the FSF be dismantled or that no one should employ him, I don't think anyone seriously want's to cancel his life's work.
The suggestions are that he shouldn't hold a leadership position in a community when he's shown an inability to lead a community safely.
I disagree that it's binary. Brendan Eich seems to be doing pretty well running Brave after being "cancelled" for donating for anti-gay-marriage causes. I think people remember that but have mostly let him get on with his life because he a) apologised, and b) no longer runs something as visible as Mozilla.
Eich didn't apologize. He expressed "sorrow at having caused pain" not remorse for what he did.[1] He wouldn't say he wouldn't do it again.[2] And he argued it wasn't discriminatory since then.
I don't think it's even about visibility. People didn't want to have to choose between leaving Mozilla and following Eich.
I have been anti Eich since I heard about all this. I dis-recommend Brave to everyone I know and will never support another Brendan Eich product again. I'm frequently surprised that the HN crowd largely seems to give him a pass on his hateful opinions towards LGBT people.
He's also an anti-masker and thinks a lot of what Dr Fauci says is actually lies. He is not somebody I look up to or see as a leader, especially in recent years.
Not sure how to define 'cancelled' globally but I will not support Eich for the future.
Imagine though you're asking "okay, I see you're a lawyer, but you're a black lawyer and I'm afraid that your public credibility in this part of the country may (alas!) be compromised"?
We DO NOT choose our ethnicity, nationality, natural hair color, food allergy so we SHOULD NOT be discriminated for that.
We DO choose how to act, like engaging in public speaking or not, showing up to court/convention poorly dressed or barefoot, or being rude to people and so on.
With choice comes accountability.
With public presence comes public accountability. Very simple.
> We DO choose how to act, like engaging in public speaking or not, showing up to court/convention poorly dressed or barefoot, or being rude to people and so on.
Hey, you solved Asperger, depression, and all mental issues. Quick, someone give this guy a Nobel prize!
The 'personal views' isn't even what this is about. He has demonstrated severe lack of understanding of the current world - he is spreading hatred and lies about people. He donates his money specifically to causes that actively make oppressed people suffer even further. It's not 'simply' a matter of personal views here. I think he does real, physical damage to the world and I don't personally want to support that.
I don't care about your personal views if they are not hateful or actively causing harm to people. But if your 'views' are spreading hatred and also harming people (even killing people by being anti-mask) then I think it's pretty clear that caring about it makes sense.
> When people go to the market, are they supposed to ask "okay, I see your eggs are free range, but do you guys support gay marriage?"
Obviously we cannot discover everything about everyone we deal with. We have to prioritize and live life, and yes it is awful to accidentally do business with hateful people, I do understand it cannot be avoided fully. We have to live life somehow if we want progress.
If it becomes known that the egg people are anti-gay-marriage then certainly I wouldn't buy from them any more.
Looking around I see he has donated $1000 to banning gay marriage. This whole opposition looks kinda dumb to me, but qualifying it as hatred is definitely an overkill.
Yeah I think that's all pretty stupid. For me these are good reasons not to work for Brave, but less good reasons not to use Brave. I think Mozilla is a bit different because of their leadership in the community. I know the Mozilla Foundation is separate, but it's part of that community and I think it was inappropriate for Eich to be in a position of leadership in that community.
I think Steve Jobs is a good similar example here. He was an asshole. I don't think I'd have wanted to work for him directly, and I don't think he should have been running a charity or a company where the community engagement was important, but I still bought an iPhone.
I'll give you that things are hardly ever binary. But toxicity is something that can be determined. They are the people do not care about others. They do not listen, no matter how many times you've talked to them. They see themselves as correct in their attitude, and others wrong. They do not change, or at least not in the short term (and definitely if they never suffer consequences). I've worked with these kind of people. We all have.
This whole "good outweighs the bad" is wrong.
1. Toxic people damage the company in general. Whether that be the reputation or culture. The consequences of their actions and words waste company resources.
2. They damage the productivity of others. Either indirectly or directly.
3. Most importantly: they hurt others. Nothing can outweigh the hurt they cause others.
What exactly does he bring to the table, other than creating drama? What is the FSF doing these days? Because literally all I see it doing is trying to clean up after RMS' messes.
The consequences will be that people will only use open standards and languages. Proprietary languages and APIs will be shunned because you'll be permanently locked in with compatible alternatives illegal.
Yea, though the fallout will be pretty bad when IBM comes trolling around with their shiny new copyright on SQL. Copyright lasts 70 years from the death of the author, so IBM would be handed an active infringement claim on basically every company that has ever sold a database product.
Most expensive "historical" movies are wrong too. Otherwise I totally agree with you. I just don't think how much a movie cost to make matters much with regards to historical accuracy.
I would love for someone to give examples of how snapshot / storyshot testing actually helped. Always seemed like the dollar-store version of screenshot diffing, with extra baggage kept around the source tree, added maintenance, and seemingly worthless tests.
(No, `expect(<MyComponent />).toMatchSnapshot()` is not a good test).
