Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Spf13 is leaving Google

spf13.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–179 of 179 posts

Re: Spf13 is leaving Google

#171

Post by mbd64 »

spf13 wrote: post #28
mupuff1234 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Am I the only one who finds that type of phrasing distasteful? I'm sure he didn't build any of those alone, and as a "leader" and a product person he probably didn't do much of the "building". Seems like he was mostly in an advisory role for Drupal, Docker and MongoDB, he didn't exactly build them.

I never intended this statement to be taken as if I built these alone. Thanks for this candid feedback. Perhaps a more accurate wording is: "You may know me from helping to build the Go Language, Docker, MongoDB, and Drupal & creating Hugo, Cobra and spf13-vim"

No, Steve that is not accurate. You didn't build MongoDB, Docker or Go. They were all wildly successful before you came on board. It's dishonest of you to insinuate that you built or helped build the core products. I can speak first hand for 10gen. For Docker you were not even there for a year, and for Go Rob was pretty clear who helped build it - Ian, Russ, Adam and a long list of people. You were ancillary involved around the periphery of all these.

Having worked on all these should be good enough you don't need to embellish and constantly overstate and lie about your contributions. Let other people talk about how great you are.

Re: Spf13 is leaving Google

#172

Post by parasense »

noisy_boy wrote: post #92

When I initially started Go, it felt so easy to pick up. Then I wrote a component in it and it felt overly verbose. Then I had to revisit the component and had to do some heavy refactoring/additional testing and realized that the language, to certain extent, didn't stand in the way. After all these iterations, I think Go is leaving an-even-bigger-adoption on the table for the want of following: 1. Functional operator…

I'd really love to see container constants. As of this writing only strings or numbers can be set constant.

``` const map[uint8]string { 0: "thing1", 1: "thing2", } ``` That way tables of data can be made immutable at compile.

Folks are left to invent stupid hacks, that don't really work. For example, a function that defines a template and returns:

``` func my_data() map[uint8]string { return map[uint8]string { 0: "thing1", 1: "thing2", } } ```

And then we have folks running silly function calls for the sake of avoiding mutability.

Don't get me wrong, I understand why this hasn't been done. We've all read the arguments against adding things to the language, but I accept in part, and reject in part that argument. Complexity always increases, so it's understandable to put the brake on run-away complexity. But GO is slightly pathological when it comes to the avoidance of adding sensible language features. The thing is most folks would rather have a slightly more complex compiler than a limiting programing language.

Re: Spf13 is leaving Google

#173

Post by na85 »

tandr wrote: post #164
na85 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>When I initially started Go, it felt so easy to pick up. Same. It felt freeing to just say "fuck it, I'll use a struct" and have the built-ins required to automagically marshall json on the wire to structs in memory. That was pretty cool. You're spawning threads^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hgoroutines and passing messages and not giving a fuck because the language protects you. Then I wanted to make v2 of my package. Go's packaging…

What language do you use nowadays, if I may ask?

Mostly C#, Lisp, and Python, very very occasionally some C.

Re: Spf13 is leaving Google

#174

Post by bee_rider »

dekhn wrote: post #169
bee_rider wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep! It was not a serious suggestion, just a joke based on taking a circuitous route through the language.

whew! I thought I was missing something obvious (I'm a graph/matrix nerd, can't you tell?)

It was a pretty nonsensical joke anyway.

Something obvious that I missed which sort of spoils the joke is that if you take a binary tree, look at it as a directed graph, and then take the adjacency matrix of the graph, it is obviously not invertible. Do'h!

Re: Spf13 is leaving Google

#175

Post by dekhn »

bee_rider wrote: post #174
dekhn wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

whew! I thought I was missing something obvious (I'm a graph/matrix nerd, can't you tell?)

It was a pretty nonsensical joke anyway. Something obvious that I missed which sort of spoils the joke is that if you take a binary tree, look at it as a directed graph, and then take the adjacency matrix of the graph, it is obviously not invertible. Do'h!

I don't think that's true- at least, I see literature saying that inversting the adjacency matrix of a graph is useful. Is there something about the property of the graph that makes it non-invertible?

Re: Spf13 is leaving Google

#176

Post by DoreenMichele »

wawjgreen wrote: post #161
DoreenMichele wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a super tired comment that gets posted endlessly. HN appreciates humor, but it loathes noise. A lot of humorous commentary is noise that adds no value. If you don't want your funny remarks down voted here, up your game.

And you are the gatekeeper of HN?

No. Not that.

Re: Spf13 is leaving Google

#177

Post by alecbz »

MonkeyMalarky wrote: post #40
alecbz wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you found Googlers to be self-aggrandizing on average? That's not been my experience working there. (But might be different for "Googlers who talk a lot/are well-known publicly".)

From the outside peering in, the only Googlers are the ones who talk a lot or loudly leverage their ex-googler status on other projects.

Right, that's what I meant. I don't think the average Googler is self-aggrandizing, but if you don't work at Google or have a big friend circle that works there, then there's a selection bias for the Googlers you do know.

Re: Spf13 is leaving Google

#178

Post by bee_rider »

dekhn wrote: post #175
bee_rider wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was a pretty nonsensical joke anyway. Something obvious that I missed which sort of spoils the joke is that if you take a binary tree, look at it as a directed graph, and then take the adjacency matrix of the graph, it is obviously not invertible. Do'h!

I don't think that's true- at least, I see literature saying that inversting the adjacency matrix of a graph is useful. Is there something about the property of the graph that makes it non-invertible?

For sure they are useful in general.

In the case of a binary tree, though -- I guess it depends on how you think of the graph. If it is directed -- a parent only points down to it's children (so, no backwards links up the tree), the adjacency matrix is clearly rank deficient. The row (or column depending on how you want the adjacency matrix to be set up) for edges going in to node 1 is empty.

If we think of the graph as undirected, it is still not invertible, but I don't know that there's anything immediately intuitive about it. With 7 nodes we'd have (numbered as in a breadth first traversal):

. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0

2 1 0 0 1 1 0 0

3 1 0 0 0 0 1 1

4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

6 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

7 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

Rows 4 and 5, as well as 6 and 7 are clearly degenerate (all the leaf nodes).

Post reply on HN