4 ms·

(Maybe I'm just cranky this morning, so please ignore this comment if it fails to please you, but uh... I think the "real WTF" is getting into a position where

(Maybe I'm just cranky this morning, so please ignore this comment if it fails to please you, but uh... I think the "real WTF" is getting into a position where you need telemetry at all. It's hard to describe what I mean, it seems like most folks who think about these things at all either get it or don't, and the two positions are so self-evident to those that hold them that it blinds us to the rationale of the "other side". In any event, "compiler does not access network" Works For Me. Sorry for the noise.)

hedora 3y ago
Yeah; I can’t imagine how terrible golang’s test infrastructure would have to be for this to provide them with any practical benefit. Their motivating example was something like “golang stopped working on clean macos, and no one noticed for months”, which kind of proves my point.
stanleydrew 3y ago
I don't think they need telemetry. Go is clearly a successful language and community without it. The whole point of the proposal is that things could be improved with some telemetry. Now of course you could weigh the tradeoffs and say the potential for improvement doesn't outweigh the risk of misuse, but it seems clear to me that reasonable people can disagree.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- carapace 3y ago
  I really don't want to argue about this (so I don't know why I'm arguing about it. Like I said, I think I'm just cranky this morning.) > I don't think they need telemetry. Go is clearly a successful language and community without it. Right! So why "pee in the soup"? > things could be improved with some telemetry Or they could not do those things? (I read "Why Telemetry?" and remain unmoved.) > you could weigh the tradeoffs I have. > the potential for improvement doesn't outweigh the risk of misuse That's not my argument. It's not even misuse that I care about here (I do care about that, but that's a separate concern, and one that doesn't arise if you don't collect data in the first place, eh?), I care about use. I don't want my compiler to make network connections to Google or anybody, for any reason. > reasonable people can disagree That's what I said.

hedora 3y ago

Yeah; I can’t imagine how terrible golang’s test infrastructure would have to be for this to provide them with any practical benefit. Their motivating example was something like “golang stopped working on clean macos, and no one noticed for months”, which kind of proves my point.

stanleydrew 3y ago

I don't think they need telemetry. Go is clearly a successful language and community without it. The whole point of the proposal is that things could be improved with some telemetry. Now of course you could weigh the tradeoffs and say the potential for improvement doesn't outweigh the risk of misuse, but it seems clear to me that reasonable people can disagree.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
carapace 3y ago
I really don't want to argue about this (so I don't know why I'm arguing about it. Like I said, I think I'm just cranky this morning.) > I don't think they need telemetry. Go is clearly a successful language and community without it. Right! So why "pee in the soup"? > things could be improved with some telemetry Or they could not do those things? (I read "Why Telemetry?" and remain unmoved.) > you could weigh the tradeoffs I have. > the potential for improvement doesn't outweigh the risk of misuse That's not my argument. It's not even misuse that I care about here (I do care about that, but that's a separate concern, and one that doesn't arise if you don't collect data in the first place, eh?), I care about use. I don't want my compiler to make network connections to Google or anybody, for any reason. > reasonable people can disagree That's what I said.