The Result type is specifically designed to store value-or-error. One may use it diffently but that’s what it’s made for.
The library designers had a choice between making a generic this-or-that type or a value-or-error type and they chose the latter because they thought that that would be the common this-or-that use-case.
Even Haskell’s more generic-sounding “Either” type is made for the same purpose: the “right” (as in correct) variant is the value while the left side is the error, by convention.
I don't understand what the problem is, in that case. Is it just the fact that it's called an Error instead of something more generic? Not trying to sound dismissive, just trying to understand if there's something I'm missing.
It took Java until Java SE 14 (last year) to produce NPE stacktraces which actually tell you which variable was null. At least in Rust third parties could have created a library to remedy a similar situation.
For whatever reason, it look a long time for parameters and locals to have a name in addition to a slot and a type in the JVM bytecode. Before that data was introduced, it was an impossible task. Also why things like de-/serialization frameworks required annotations on parameters duplicating the parameter name.
Bringing up points like the second/third world wages in a conversation about first-world pay will benefit neither first-world workers nor any other worker (which begs the question -- qui bono?).
Their arguments are not even consistent:
1. They claim that it is just about bringing an awareness to the issue.
2. It’s not about stiffing any worker (so-called first-world or otherwise).
3. You shouldn’t be a hypocrite.
4. But in order to be consistent (not to violate (3)) you need to also argue that you yourself shouldn’t be able to, say, work remotely for a Bay Area company and get the same pay as the locals. Therefore (1) can’t be true since you actually have to forfeit the negotiation on the altar of your own relative privilege (see (2)).
Then they close this new article by saying that:
1. We shouldn’t argue against location-based pay.
2. Then they approvingly quote someone who claims that “we should reject the notion of Location-Based Pay”. But that contradicts (1) since this means that you should actively combat the idea of location-based pay.
I won’t call you crazy, but I will call you naive. Modern civilization was what brought us centralized states and corporations. And yet we always seem to think that that next hill, just over the horizon is where everything will flip on its head and we will be back to some mythical past where we could roam wherever we please—all enabled by technology of course.
I don’t see the early 19th century as a “mythical past”, nor did I say big changes were “just over the horizon.”
Space is quite literally limitless from a human perspective; to assume that somehow human beings will make zero progress on space travel 500 or 1,000 years from now seems naive to me.
I didn’t say something about the progress of space travel. I made an observation about how technological progress and centralization are correlated. And I don’t think societies in the age of space travel (with the technology that that entails) will be less centralized than what we have now.
But I don’t think technological process and centralization are necessarily correlated. It’s more like they go in cycles.
The progression from trains to cars is a good example. At first you had highly centralized, expensive transport. Then cars developed and became decentralized.
On a longer timeline, consider technologies like writing, or paper. Initially highly centralized, now so ubiquitous that we don’t even recognize them as technologies.
I’m basically just saying that on a long enough timeline, the chances that space transportation is controlled by a central authority seems nearly impossible.
Capacity as relates to e.g. lung capacity - many people can grow their lung capacity and run or bike long distances, but many can't and don't.
So yeah, people can lack mental capacity without being stupid. They are nevertheless extremely uninteresting people who can't fathom, much like cattle, how they are being harvested.
Pretty much correct. It’s a bit ridiculous that high-tech gadgets (rare earth metals and all that) are sometimes considered to be environmentally friendly. Still though, consumption choices will ultimately never save the environment.
The library designers had a choice between making a generic this-or-that type or a value-or-error type and they chose the latter because they thought that that would be the common this-or-that use-case.
Even Haskell’s more generic-sounding “Either” type is made for the same purpose: the “right” (as in correct) variant is the value while the left side is the error, by convention.