A ton of these new system languages can't seem to let go of exceptions (and/or null), which is increasingly being shown to be bad design. I would wager good money that a significant majority of those who disagree have not used exceptionless languages in anger.
Personally, I would learn any of them for a job - but not for joy. Exceptions subtract joy.
V is definitely worth looking at (but I have found the time yet).
A chicken and egg problem is highly unlikely. Here's a few probable situations:
1) A fdroid equivalent pops up, which them becomes a collection of fantastic open source apps, and soon develops a strong user base.
2) Google launches play store for iPhone, which will on day 1 get millions of users.
3) Meta launches metaStore, which so the only way to get Facebook, threads, Instagram and WhatsApp. This becomes the fastest growing store in a matter of a week.
One may personally not like this world - but imo it's a better world than the one we have - personally for (1) to exist.
> 3) Meta launches metaStore, which so the only way to get Facebook, threads, Instagram and WhatsApp. This becomes the fastest growing store in a matter of a week.
Why? They don't do this on Android.
At then end of the day the number of active users would fall if they do this. That's unavoidable. So what incentives do they have to not distribute on the App Store? It's not like (unlike in Epic's case) Apple is requiring Facebook to hand over 30% of its revenue.
fdroid is of course great. Extremely niche and not that significant, though.
> Google launches play store for iPhone, which will on day 1 get millions of users.
Amazon tried that on Android. Of course I would expect Google to do much better but that doesn't mean a lot.
On #3, Meta could have done it for Android and I don't think they did. Actually if Android is a god estimation of how it looks like with 3rd party stores, it won't be super disruptive.
Unless the iOS market is so lucrative it will garner far more interest.
This will rightly push Apple in the right direction - to bring the right OS controls at the operating system level / store API level, and not leave things up to apps. This is a better world, despite short term issues with metaStore.
> bring the right OS controls at the operating system level / store API level, and not leave things up to apps
This will almost certainly be litigated. We also haven’t broached national laws mandating a government-controlled App Store. (Would expect this to emerge in right-wing Europe or India first.)
Here's one line of thought - You can hand over 130K to your son, and let him decide.
Then he'll have to treat that as an investment, either into college (and hence he'd hopefully be Very Serious about it), or use it for something else - travelling, entrepreneurship, MF/stock investment, etc. The weight of the decision and the ensuing use of the monies are both the payoff, not a degree per-se.
Perhaps explains why Indian accent is the way it is - most of the time it's a literal phonetic translation. Words like "champagne" are source of joke for any English learner, but even a simple word like "nature" has a phonetic translation of "Na two rae".
As a Bollywood superstar famously quotes: English is a funny language.
It's that plus the fact that half of spoken Hindi is actually English words cobbled into the language similar to how English was latinized due to the normans and french
> the assignments could simply be worth 0% [..] that the proctored, for-credit exams would demand that they write similar essays.
We run university programs at my company, and arrived at this bit of insight as well. That said, some of your points are incorrect or incomplete:
- You can't build systems assuming responsible individuals. These systems are guaranteed to fail. Instead, assume individuals are mould-able, and build a system which nurtures discipline towards goals. This works.
- There are still issues with cheating, but it's more of an older way of thinking, that we developed methods to reset.
- Advanced students need to be given more challenging assignments - quantum of assignments should be the same no matter the capability of students. This solution was unworkable until GenAI came about.
Looked from a pure individual skill-building perspective your ideas are alluring, but if one looks at completion rates of any online courses (Udemy/Coursera - under 4%), then one understands why physical cohort-led education system can work.
Happy to chat with anyone who'd like to delve deeper on this.
if one looks at completion rates of any online courses (Udemy/Coursera - under 4%)
As someone with a 96+% 'failure' rate on Udemy/Coursera I honestly don't see the relevance of this statistic. Most people going to University are there primarily because they want/need the degree. That piece of paper is really valuable, perhaps even more so than the knowledge gained. The piece of 'paper' offered by Coursera/Udemy etc. has basically zero value, so the people taking those courses are doing it almost exclusively for the knowledge they offer. Once you've learned what you wanted to learn from the course there is very little incentive to go the extra mile and go for the 'completion'.
The piece of paper is valuable because it represents a sustained effort of learning over an extended period of time.
I understand how from an individual's pov what you said makes sense. Similarly I hope you understand why from the system's perspective: it's the effort that's mandated and not just the proficiency.
Employers and others (higher education orgs, etc) care a lot about sustained effort, alongside proficiency. Only proficiency-focused systems (like Udemy/Coursera/Youtube) are not respected as credentials, since they do not showcase this.
It's not like juniors roles will go away. More and more - it's looking like there's a higher bar for high compensation that was the norm. It seems like juniors SWEs will have to toil more to reach higher level of skills, become valuable to their teams, before they "make" it. I'm seeing this trend across the engg leaders I speak with.
Of course engineers will be paid, just that entry level pay has come down. (Pay at entry level has fallen at least 40% in the mid-size product sector).
This is the most common mistake engineers make. Code is not worth anything. Solving a user's problem, which they're willing to pay for (not just any problem), is what can be converted to wealth. The intersection of these 2 is very small, and very dense - since all engineers aim for it.
If you venture out of that region and try to discover and solve problems (and if needed use code/automation/tech), you have a surer chance of generating wealth.
I think it's worth re-looking at it anew - it brings a good collection of ideas in PL space.
reply