71–80 of 88 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> For sure it may have a few digits less of accuracy in some dashboards but who cares. You could argue that it's ultimately the users who suffer. Telemetry helps guide development, so it's harder for developers to know what to focus their efforts on.
But the users can still report issues. And Golang also has the yearly survey that gives much more valuable inputs than telemetry could track IMHO.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The walrus operator did not exist before 3.8, there was no real alternative before. The backlash was from people who dislike the idea and would prefer Python didn't add it.
The operator didn’t exist but the functionality did. It was just a side effect of python’s wonky variable scoping which they gave an operator. I’m not familiar with how it works now but the example I remember was the variables escaping from list comprehension statements, like: x = [y for y in z] if y != z[-1]: bad_stuff_happened() Or something like that, maybe I’m wrong, honestly never had a use for the walrus.
if (m := re.search("regex is(n't)? fun")):
print("there was a match")
# do something with m
[y for x in xs if (y := f(x)) == 5]
They should simply allow for people to pick their default at installation. (so at download) Even better if the go tool were to have a `go update` with a `telemetry-off` flag or something. (and possibly a prompt to remind people otherwise they will complain again) Problem solved.
`telemetry-on` flag. Sending data to third parties should _never_ be implicit or the default. Every PM, marketer, and mid-level manager needs to be firmly reminded that this is grossly invasive, user-hostile, impolite, and creepy. Without an explicit agreement, it could even run afoul of wiretapping laws (unresolved in courts, as far as I’m aware).
When you 'go upgrade' your compiler, if telemetry was off it should stay off. No need to further specify in most cases.
If telemetry was on, you might want to turn it off, however.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The operator didn’t exist but the functionality did. It was just a side effect of python’s wonky variable scoping which they gave an operator. I’m not familiar with how it works now but the example I remember was the variables escaping from list comprehension statements, like: x = [y for y in z] if y != z[-1]: bad_stuff_happened() Or something like that, maybe I’m wrong, honestly never had a use for the walrus.
Python’s scoping rules are wonky, but the walrus is generally useful in two cases. The first one is to define a variable in an `if` and only run the contents of the `if` if the variable is truey — for example, re.search returns a Match object or None: if (m := re.search("regex is(n't)? fun")): print("there was a match") # do something with m The other would be defining a variable in the `if` clause of a list comprehe…
while data := fh.read(131072):
# do stuff
while True:
data = fh.read()
if not data: break
# do stuffEarlier quoted context omitted.
In that scenario, not going opt-out is not a mistake. But going opt-in probably is a mistake, because the data will be useless, so it’s a waste of time to implement.
Why would data be useless?
Googler 2: The data says 100% of users are opted in, so deprecating the obsolete and unpopular opt-out functionality is the evidence-based choice. Ignore the shrill demagogues on the mailing list saying otherwise, their anecdotes are meaningless.
Reminded of a post I saw the other day referencing Clausewitz to say "if your ideal military strategy is politically unachievable, it's not the ideal strategy". If going for opt-out telemetry makes your customers hate you and you're forced to retreat under a hail of fire, going opt-in is not a mistake. There's also a philosophical problem in going too deep into "customers don't know what they want" and A/B testing ev…
Ah, are you also a Bret Devereux reader?
Reminded of a post I saw the other day referencing Clausewitz to say "if your ideal military strategy is politically unachievable, it's not the ideal strategy". If going for opt-out telemetry makes your customers hate you and you're forced to retreat under a hail of fire, going opt-in is not a mistake. There's also a philosophical problem in going too deep into "customers don't know what they want" and A/B testing ev…
Yes, the author of the article makes the mistake of... not listening to or responding to what the other side thinks, just because she disagrees with them. No concern was addressed in her article.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Uh, what? The Go team introduced an idea, opt out telemetry with a one week delay before it was sent. Users said it wasn’t great, overwhelmingly. The Go team heard the feedback and made it opt in. What’s the problem, that’s a good thing.
People are naive, am sure he doesn’t know that rust has telemetry
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, the author of the article makes the mistake of... not listening to or responding to what the other side thinks, just because she disagrees with them. No concern was addressed in her article.
For what it's worth I have actually listened to the arguments that the other side had made, but I didn't want to focus on that in place of the stuff that I felt was missed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For what it's worth I have actually listened to the arguments that the other side had made, but I didn't want to focus on that in place of the stuff that I felt was missed.
I think the Go developers argued for it very well, but there is a reason they decided to go with opt-out, so calling it a mistake makes no sense to me unless you address that reason.