But if both sides are your enemies, they’re both your friends. But if they’re your friends, they aren’t the enemies of your enemies anymore, which would make them your enemies once again. But then they are your friends again. But then

docker-machine doesn’t use emulation, it’s virtualization.

Though naming it by the following year instead of the release year is clearly a marketing move.

JS itself is great, I prefer it to most other languages due to the flexibility that it allows. Adding types through TS to safeguard against footguns doesn’t mean you’re not still using JS. You can also add the types using comments instead if you prefer it, which means you’re actually writing raw JS.

That’s your prerogative, but it honestly doesn’t make sense. Typescript adds almost no functionality to JS (and the few pieces it adds are now considered mistakes that shouldn’t be used anymore). It only focuses on adding typing information, and in the future you’ll be able to run TS that doesn’t use those few added features as JS (see the proposal).

You can also add the TS types as comments in your JS code, which IMO shows that it’s not a different language.

Not really, considering Typescript only adds static types to JS. It’s not a different language, it’s an extension.

I wouldn’t use raw JS for anything new, yes. Typescript however is an excellent language.

Sure, but at this point it’s your own fault if you don’t use Typescript to keep these issues from happening.

There is operator overloading happening - the + operator has a different meaning depending on the types involved. Your issue however seems to be with the type coercion, not the operator overloading.

It should not happen no matter why it does happen under the hood.

If you don’t want it to happen either use a different language, or ensure you don’t run into this case (e.g. by using Typescript). It’s an unfortunate fact that this does happen, and it will never be removed due to backwards compatibility.

Sure, but then your issue is with type coercion, not operator overloading.

It should just randomly pick any “1”. Add a bit of spice, you know

That’s the case in many languages, pretty much in all that don’t have a separate string concatenation operator.

Sorry, but that’s absolutely wrong - the complexity of articles can vary wildly. Many are easily understandable, while many others are not understandable without a lot of prerequisite knowledge in the domain (e.g. mathematics stuff).

If the reader is interested in the content, they aren’t going to skip it.

But they aren’t interested in the content because of the complexity. You may wish that humans work like you describe, but we literally see that they don’t.

What you can do is provide a simplified summary to make people interested, so they’re willing to engage with the more complex language to get deeper knowledge around the topic.

For example, look at all the iPad kids who can’t use a computer for shit. Kids who grew up with computers HAD to learn the more complex interface of computers to be able to do the cool things they wanted to do on the computer.

You’re underestimating how many people before the iPad generation also can’t use computers because they never developed an interest to engage with the complexity.

[…] then how are those readers going to improve their poor reading skills?

By becoming interested in improving their poor reading skills. You won’t make people become interested in that by having everything available only in complex language, it’s just going to make them skip over your content. Otherwise there shouldn’t be people with poor reading skills, since complex language is already everywhere in life.

Python has a bunch of magic variables, like __name__. This one contains the name of the module you’re currently in (usually based on the file name), so if your file is called foo.py, it will have the value foo.

But that’s only if your module is being imported by another module. If it’s executed directly (e.g. python foo.py), it will instead have a __name__ of __main__. This is often used to add a standalone CLI section to modules - e.g. the module usually only defines functions that can be imported, but when executed it runs an example of those functions.

I never understood this kind of objection. You yourself state that maybe 10% of users can find some good use for this - and that means that we should stop developing the technology until some arbitrary, higher threshold is met? 10% of users is an incredibly big amount! Why is that too little for this development to make sense?

I once had to go on a longer medical leave, couple of months. In preparation, I documented everything - pages upon pages answering all questions in easily searchable formats. For more than a month, any questions I got were answered with links to specific sections in the documentation, so people would know where to find everything. I put the links everywhere, in total there were at least 200 links to various sections of the documentation throughout all our communication mediums, as well as all information repositories.

After I came back from leave, most of the things I was responsible for were turned off. When I asked why, the response was “we didn’t find your documentation”.

I no longer care whether things keep working.