@wolf480pl@mstdn.io I have zero clue, but because golang seems to almost always pick the stupidest option available, it's gotta be the error message one
I kinda want to transition into more devops side of work, but all of the popular tools in that space nowadays are golang and I can't work with golang for more than a week straight without getting too angry to work
@wolf480pl@mstdn.io I do data engineering with a side of making and improving the systems that help us deploy and run our code.
My problem is that when I do work with common devops tools, I tend to go fairly deep with them, and often end up hitting problems that either require me to write golang, or are deeply rooted in problems with golang. I like abstracting shit, and golang fights against it even if it gets wrapped around in a bunch of other languages. I filled https://github.com/hashicorp/terraform-provider-kubernetes/pull/1723 as I was working with CDKTF to parametrize a system, even though everything I wrote for that system was written in Pyhton. I'm now thinking of using Pulumi just because it doesn't basically require me to use golang to write providers. I will sooner rewrite Kubernetes then I ever will make a YAML template for it.
A lot of the shit that annoys me in DevOps tools is there because they were built with golang, and as such the design was done with limitations of golang in mind. But when I go to approach solutions, I don't have the limitations of golang in mind, and they always end up slowing me down.
I understand that maybe some things I want to do aren't really required for most dayjob things, but I think they are hurting the ease of use for software. Like, there is a bunch of software that is essentially made to be deployed on Kubernetes, but doesn't have anything better than a Helm package for it, which is fucking terrible. But the design limits golang imposes hardly allow for anything better than templating for software reusability. Reusable components are almost a pipe dream. You don't need them when you're only thinking about your what your company deploys, because you're not running a ton of different deployments of a single software package. But every company writing their own deployment for the same software with mostly the same operating constraints in all cases is fucking wasteful, and just sucks on the industry as a whole. There's businesses that just deploy some open source software in the cloud for you without you needing to worry without that much additional functionality and that's worth paying double the price of raw compute it's getting deployed on because the deployment and operational experience of said software is abysmal, purely because everyone needs to cook up their own deployment from scratch.
I know that it's possible to do basically anything without touching golang, but I find it very annoying when I have stoop down to the level of golang to do things when they so easily could be done in a much better way.
@feld@friedcheese.us@lanodan@queer.hacktivis.me@niconiconi@mk.absturztau.be I understand where it would be useful. I don't think these cases are all that common though (it can often be cheaper to put up a bunch of 10 port switches all over the place than to wire a ton of copper from a central location).
@feld@friedcheese.us@lanodan@queer.hacktivis.me@niconiconi@mk.absturztau.be right, that's the one I mean when I talked about the ones coming from industry. This one is included on MNT Reform Next. But the laptop will also come with a dongle from it to regular ethernet, because there's zero chance that people transition to using it rather than modular 8P8C
It's just that replacing it is damn near impossible. There are some stuff that's coming from more industrial automation side of things that is getting semi-standard there (because there the brittleness and everything else really sucks), and the new MNT laptop uses one of those by default because it's smaller and sturdier, but I don't really see it coming to the mainstream.
@lanodan@queer.hacktivis.me I mean all of those little symbols that zalgofy it are essentially minor sound notes from what I recall about IPA
IPA is cool in that it can be both quite general, an very specific, depending on the circumstance, there's certainly space to go into minute detail for language preservation (it was designed before sound recordings after all), but there's a danger of going too much into specifics.
Though, at least the brackets in the image are correct for what it's worth.
@lanodan@queer.hacktivis.me that looks like it has so much detail that it describes more like "how a specific person in a specific recording pronounced this word" rather than "how speakers in general pronounce this word"
@sun@shitposter.world I mean, my comment was more of a joke about how most W3C specs concern browser stuff, and the more complex stuff in browsers that you're doing, the more likely it is that it's not going to work with one of them
I do in fact existI'm an information sponge, so if you have some question that you think I might have an answer to, feel free to ask! Even if I won't have it off my head, I know how to look up things fast.