3 ms·

>The people behind Go promote Go, and the people behind Dart promote Dart, and the people working on Tensorflow promote Tensorflow. That's what they're working

>The people behind Go promote Go, and the people behind Dart promote Dart, and the people working on Tensorflow promote Tensorflow. That's what they're working on. This doesn't require consensus about languages, or even philosophies behind languages. And I assumed that it did. This is not an unreasonable assumption given the fact that all of these languages / frameworks are not functional or use ADTs. >So, pointing to Go and saying it contradicts some other language's philosophy? There is no contradiction. They are different people. And even the same person could agree that each language has different strengths. Literally my main post was about how my assumption was incorrect. Either way, you can not pinpoint for sure that this culture does not exist unless you've worked for google and talked to those people. It probably does, and dex may just be an exception. >(Also, "known to many Googlers" doesn't imply "known to all Googlers", so pointing out someone who didn't know something isn't a counterexample.) Pointing to a leader who controls entire teams of people who is a language designer who doesn't know many things is supporting evidence. Leaders establish culture in a company, which can be described as a type of consensus within a diverse group of peoples. >You use "antithesis" like there's a contradiction, but this dissolves because we are talking about different people. I am talking about culture NOT people with differing opinions. Culture is a singular thing. Sort of like how google is a singular thing. An abstraction. I made an assumption about the culture and it surprised me when something contradicted that assumption. The problem in your universe is such assumptions should not ever be made. The assumption is reasonable because you haven't presented any information would prove such an assumption absurd to the point of no return. Your arguments imply that abstractions don't exist, everything is made up of components and parts; and assumptions about abstract groupings of said components are all "unreasonable" because abstract grouping are made of components and components have the potential to be different. You imply that components can never be the same and thus an assumption to that fact is incorrect. That is the essence of your argument and it is fundamentally wrong to the point of complete absurdity.

skybrian 7y ago
I think we were at cross-purposes because you want to know whether your assumptions were reasonable, not whether they were false. Sorry about that, I wasn't hearing you. It's true, Hacker News can be harsh sometimes, and I'm sorry you got downvoted so much. I don't think your assumptions were absurd. But maybe there are better assumptions to make? Can we talk about that instead? I'm not saying abstractions don't exist, but I would suggest taking some of them less seriously. In particular, I take the idea that companies are singular much less seriously. It's a show they put on for the convenience of the outside world and it takes effort to maintain. Internal politics is often hidden away. It's a leaky abstraction and often breaks down. (Sometimes literally through people leaking.) Also, some things they don't try to standardize. Diversity of opinion can be fine. Research, in particular, works that way. It would be weird to try to squelch diversity of opinion in research, where the whole point is to explore new ideas. Giving researchers the ability to publish their ideas, even those the company ends up not supporting, is a good way to recruit researchers.

skybrian 7y ago

I think we were at cross-purposes because you want to know whether your assumptions were reasonable, not whether they were false. Sorry about that, I wasn't hearing you. It's true, Hacker News can be harsh sometimes, and I'm sorry you got downvoted so much. I don't think your assumptions were absurd. But maybe there are better assumptions to make? Can we talk about that instead? I'm not saying abstractions don't exist, but I would suggest taking some of them less seriously. In particular, I take the idea that companies are singular much less seriously. It's a show they put on for the convenience of the outside world and it takes effort to maintain. Internal politics is often hidden away. It's a leaky abstraction and often breaks down. (Sometimes literally through people leaking.) Also, some things they don't try to standardize. Diversity of opinion can be fine. Research, in particular, works that way. It would be weird to try to squelch diversity of opinion in research, where the whole point is to explore new ideas. Giving researchers the ability to publish their ideas, even those the company ends up not supporting, is a good way to recruit researchers.