31–40 of 42 posts
11£ a month is a lot. Any way to try it for free ?
I logged in and was surprised to see Quran on the main page as "daily reminder"
Edit: I should say there's a configuration json in home/cards.json but I haven't documented the various settings for cards, RSS feeds, YouTube channels yet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are standing on the shoulders of giants. There's nothing wrong with the ideals and the motivation, but it begs the question: Could Mu exist without go? could go exist without google? Could Mu exist without google? And all of that culminates with: Could the level of technology and the internet reach the state it is today without big tech? And if not, was the price we paid to get here worth it?
> but it begs the question: Could Mu exist without go? could go exist without google? Could Mu exist without google? No, it doesn't. Obviously Mu could exist without Go, if Google stopped development on the language, its current state could be forked (Go 2). Lots of programming languages exist without Google's support, there are even programming languages older than Google.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Go is a programming language. It’s not exactly pushing google’s ad agenda. Your criticism of using github and discord are somewhat valid, but asking people to re-invent the wheel while they re-invent the bicycle seems like arbitrarily making up rules so everyone fails. Is there some influence you expect to leak into their platform thru github or discord?
> It’s not exactly pushing google’s ad agenda. Maybe not their ad agenda, but certainly one of their agendas. Specifically, the agenda they have to get young, inexperienced developers prepared for specifically the software development practices they employ internally. It was directly stated that "Go is not for clever developers" and that their target is recent graduates with limited experience. It punishes you for tr…
What “clever” code is required to write a BBS-over-IP? 99.99% of code isn’t clever and shouldn’t be clever.
> It punishes you for trying to think about what you're building and to design sophisticated software, relying more on brute force.
Can you give an example of this? I have not written much go, so i am unable to think of a case where golang encourages brute force over sophistication?
Uses Go, a language written by and maintained by Google [1]. Uses co-pilot written by GitHub for development [4].
Mu is £11 a month and you cannot see any screenshot of what you are getting [2], the same price you could buy a cheap VPS for [3]. The two authors of the project are asim and co-pilot. The commits have meaningless messages [4].
I would run a million miles away from this.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_(programming_language)
[2] https://github.com/asim/mu
> Big tech failed us. Uses Go, a language written by and maintained by Google [1]. Uses co-pilot written by GitHub for development [4]. Mu is £11 a month and you cannot see any screenshot of what you are getting [2], the same price you could buy a cheap VPS for [3]. The two authors of the project are asim and co-pilot. The commits have meaningless messages [4]. I would run a million miles away from this. [1] https://…
To address some of your other comments on commits/copilot. Commit messages are about as meaningful as email subject titles. At a certain point they really don't offer much value when you have powerful search tools. Essentially the source of truth is the current codebase. Maybe the commit message is going to provide insight into what was happening at that time, but when you're coding with AI toolings it feels almost irrelevant if not dated. If anything it should autocommit with a useful message if its that much of an issue. Second to that, Yes I use copilot, why, because hand coding is 10x slower. I lay the foundations by hand but then started to rely on copilot for a lot of changes beyond that. Again going back to the point, yes big tech failed us, but on social and consumer. The dev tooling and technology is fine, but the addictive and exploitive nature of the consumer tooling is not.
In all honesty, thank you for highlighting the depths of the warts on the project. It's always good for people to see the truth.
Note on £11/month. It's free to use. Membership is just for those who want to support it and help with roadmap, get access to features, etc but point taken about the screenshot.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It’s not exactly pushing google’s ad agenda. Maybe not their ad agenda, but certainly one of their agendas. Specifically, the agenda they have to get young, inexperienced developers prepared for specifically the software development practices they employ internally. It was directly stated that "Go is not for clever developers" and that their target is recent graduates with limited experience. It punishes you for tr…
> Go is not for clever developers What “clever” code is required to write a BBS-over-IP? 99.99% of code isn’t clever and shouldn’t be clever. > It punishes you for trying to think about what you're building and to design sophisticated software, relying more on brute force. Can you give an example of this? I have not written much go, so i am unable to think of a case where golang encourages brute force over sophistica…
They've explicitly stated that they wanted to discourage building abstractions, since "abstractions are hard to learn".
Concretely, this is evident in how channels and goroutines both poorly compose together, in part a result of the unsophisticated type system. It's difficult to build very generic libraries that can be leveraged as force multipliers, like the tokio-tower ecosystem does. You can do it, but it comes at performance costs or involves relying on codegen.
Google's Bazel build systems are designed around reasoning about and checking-in generated code, but the standard go tooling doesn't do this well and git workflows also don't really grapple with it well. This aspect of the design is very clearly an example of internal Google processes leaking out.
The membership is unclear also: it says "try for free" which makes me suspect I will only be able to use it for limited time before needing to pay, but you only need to pay to support the project and early access. Seems like a lot of potential users will be lost because they get the impression it's a subscription service.
I think that this could be marketed a lot better. The website has no information at all and it's not possible to work out what the project is from it. The github readme does contain a lot more information but it's still not presented very well. The "Overview" section needs to clearly explain what the project is rather than just stating the motivation for the project. I was able to determine what the project is only b…