(sorry for the wall of text; I guess you asked for it :)
Mostly, I feel it slows me down. I'd rather continue on to the next thought than translate the current one into words in my head. It's a semi-conscious decision. I can almost feel the word-making machinery gearing up, but if I race ahead it doesn't have time to grab on.
Also, it can be a bit overly-constraining. Sometimes constraints are good, like the article mentions — they force you to make decisions and face issues. But sometimes I feel like ideas are better served left in an "un-collapsed" state, at least for a time. I feel like much of my most valuable thinking happens in that state. And sometimes manifesting the thought is better accomplished through artwork, or physical activity, or something else that's not writing.
So I guess there's a "to manifest or not manifest the thought" decision, and after that, there's a "to manifest in writing/words vs. another medium" decision.
I remember as a teenager talking to some friends about thinking, and the idea of thinking without words was surprising to them — for them, thinking was words. And I gather this is true for many people. But I also gather it's not true for many people, myself included (: Apparently, there are some people who have word-thoughts appear as text floating in their mind, which is wild to me — lots of weird mental variety out there[1].
Over the years, I've come to see my thoughts as more "tactile" than anything else. Lots of physical textures and movements involved. Just earlier, I was wrestling with an issue that has been on my mind, and it was like trying to solve one of those "separate the ring from the rope" puzzles — lots of turning, twisting, pushing, pulling. I've been struggling with this task, and writing about too, but I feel like I made more progress with that recent mental wrangling than I had with pen and paper. Though I can't quite (yet) put into words the progress I've made!
Anyway, when people write about "how to think" topics, I sometimes feel left out because there's often an implicit assumption/bias towards wordiness, and the primacy of words in thinking. Unsurprisingly, these writings are written by writers who love words, so there's a bit of a self-selection bias going on. Words sometimes get ascribed near-mystical powers ("In the beginning was the Word...", magic incantations, runes, etc), and they are kind of magical. But I also know from my own inner world that there's a nameless, wordless magic, too. But writers don't write about that as much ("write what you know"), so you don't hear about it, and it doesn't hold as much cultural sway.
So, I try to speak up for the alternatives, encourage people to keep a broader perspective.
Thank you. This is very different from my own experience and I find it fascinating.
My thoughts are mostly verbal. I do hear an inner voice all the time. I cannot easily catch the moment before words start to form. This excessive wordiness often leads me to a negative experience, it’s relatively easy to fall down on a spiral, worrying to much, going over and over about all the things that can go wrong. I just wish I had the ability to stop. I’m looking into meditation because of this.
One bit of research that stuck with me is the "split brain" experiments in the 1960s [1][2]. There do seem to be multiple different "personalities" at work, fairly independent of each other, with different strengths and weaknesses. The idea of a non-speaking but more spatial/visual consciousness in the right half of the brain resonates with me. The verbal side does seem to be reluctant to give up control, sometimes[3].
For me, on some low level, I've always wanted to be comfortable in my own skin, so I feel like my various parts can ultimately agree on that goal, and it helps avoid conflict. There is some level of self-trust that's required for wordy-me to give up some control to the bigger, quieter, less predictable me(s).
I definitely feel like I understand what you mean about the spiral of worrying and I too associate that with the wordy/controlling part of myself, somewhat. I wish you luck on trusting yourself(s) and releasing that grip a bit, from time to time.
It seems to be wrapping drizzle, with astrodb just being a way to deeper integrate it into the framework and adding some ease of use features. Also seems like a nice way to support the development of astro by using their hosting service.
As far as I can see from looking at their repo, Drizzle isn't a wrapper for Kysely though? You can use Kysely or other query builders with drizzle, but it has its own query builder too.
I don’t want to sound harsh, but saying Javascript is a simpler version of Java just tells me you have never used Java seriously.
It’s like saying Korean is a simpler version of Spanish.
Yes, Java and Javascript are both programming languages, but they don’t even share the same paradigm.
You might be confusing the motivation that led to the creation of Javascript with the actual implementation.
Having said that, I have used Java professionally for more than 7 years, then I switched to mainly Javascript, and later to Typescript, and I’m never going back. I agree with your overall point.
In my opinion it is up there with null and other billion dollar mistakes.
The language only works as well as it does because hundreds of people smarter than me have spent hundreds of man-years creating toolings and ecosystems around it to work around all its problems.
This is not to be read as a dismissal of Brendan Eich or anyone - it is totally amazing that he threw together a language that has worked so amazingly well in three weeks.
But everytime one switches between TS and JS one wonders how much money could have been saved if he had somehow invented TS instead back then.
How about instead of analogies (which we've misunderstood even on this thread), just say this: "Java and Javascript are very different languages, don't be confused by the similarity of the names".
Of course, at this point virtually everyone knows this, now we are only arguing about which analogy to use to describe something we all understand.
