> deserve at least a living wage for their time and efforts
I agree with the sentiment
However,
> $24000 in the bank
I assume there are multiple developers. If the developers are based on North America or Europe that money does not guarantee a living wage for more than.. some months?
Genuinely interested in understanding why you need this level of precision. To me it would seem you are removing some abstraction and getting to the details. If this something common in your line of work? E.g. in your peers? If that's the case, would you mind sharing the field you're active in? Do you have a hunch why you would need this level of detail e.g. Education, culture?
Because labelling all policies as negative by association isn't an actual evaluation of the merit of the policy. If you mark all policies as bad because they must all be bad, you're almost certainly excluding good policies from future consideration. Is not the goal good policies?
Very curious to understand the thinking behind this, why should the weekend be E and A? My first approach would be to have the weekend on D and E which would seem to be the end of the week.
That’s a late 20th century invention, and not universally followed. Consider Unix time functions, which predate the ISO standard and follow what’s common practice in America even today, that Sunday is the first day of the week. Of course, Sunday was the first day of the week in Europe for over a thousand years and that practice has not fully been extinguished.
In French. "End of week" would be "fin de semaine" but we don’t say that, we say "weekend". Which is understood as these two days when most people don’t work.
If anything, "fin de semaine" would refer to the last working days before the weekend.
Does this consistently work for you? I have something like this plus some commands that are explicitly in a deny list in the harness. Roughly twice a week, the model manages to run the deny listed commands, that I need afterwards to manually revert.
Almost completely consistently. I can vaguely remember one slip up in over 6 months of daily usage. Good enough that I'm not inclined to use anything more heavy to guard against this. My agents.md is small and fokused. I only use Sol in pi.dev and Fable in Claude Code.
I find it so sad that people wasted millions of hours and lines of code rewriting over and over basic constructs that should have been on the language in the first place. How many years before we finally get sum types?
Go was never simple in action. The fact that you'd panic a nil map but not a nil slice is a foot gun. It's a pretty big foot gun. It's just one of the many foot guns.
I think that the best feature that go was able to create is a very strong community around the language, where practices are as important as the language itself. Maybe these practices are what makes the community strong?
Also not adding every single feature that could be nice is a good thing to me. Yes, there is a lot of syntactic sugar you could add, but this just ends up in even more debates and in the end it doesn't matter that much. There is a very clear path how to achieve regular things in go and that works fine for now
We can have the same argument about memory unsafe languages: "it should be the programmer that checks that the memory it's accessed in a safe way and not the machine"... and yet after many years and legions of programmers not being able to stop themselves creating memory leaks, we created memory safe languages and we advocate for their usage.
I hope it's clear that what was proposed above is just a toy problem to show the issue. In complex parts of the code, unfortunately, these errors sometimes happen. That's a fact.
A programming language should actually try to protect you from some logic errors. This is why have we programming languages in the first place. Otherwise why bother with garbage collection, types etc? Should we just use assembly then for maximal flexibilty and putting all the burden on the programmer?
It seems like an innocent mistake to me. I think there's a difference between actively ignoring something (like assigning an error to _), and ignoring something through omission. I think computers should try and prevent mistakes.
Go errors if you try to assign a number to a string, so it's clear there is some intention for the machine to catch when your brain makes a silly mistake.
I don't know how other developers think while coding, but if something can error out, I always handle the error first, or at least insert a panic() or equivalent immediately before continuing coding, regardless of the language I'm working on.
I can also think a couple of cases where I deliberately catch the error, but don't do anything on it explicitly, esp. if I'm talking with a buggy hardware. I'd still log the errors as INFOs or WARNs though. I have seen too many "task failed successfully" errors in my life.
reply