It’s such a nice coincidence that your path matches mine as well, going from Turbo Pascal to IntelliJ.
When I started on Java, I was disappointed at the quality of IDEs so much that I resorted to coding in Notepad instead. I was so used to the seamlessness of Borland IDEs. It was only when I did a 30-day trial of IntelliJ that I started using an IDE again.
Ten years ago, JavaScript was my go to when I wanted to expose others to coding. It still is today, but now that comes with the caveat that the most popular libraries and framework require a significant amount of prior knowledge to understand and to start using.
I haven't done this exercise in a long while, but the last time I tried to start a project from the "most current and stable releases and recommendations", I ended up not being able to get anything running. In the end, I had several hundred megabytes of libraries downloaded, a complicated configuration, and a non-working application.
Today, there are toolsets to get you started with everything and produce a running application, but it's almost totally opaque. I'm afraid to use them because the first time something breaks, I don't know if I would be able to resolve the issue.
I would still rather have a decent understanding of how things connect.
That was my biggest eyeopener when I started using React - the piece I know just the tippy top of the iceberg. While that's true with a lot of languages (it's not as though I know what's going on with the whole .NET stack) it seemed especially egregious. I had a site up and running quickly, but it pretty much entirely magic.
Do you teach JavaScript first just because of how fast it is to get it up and running (ie. "Just open your web browser")? If I remember correctly it was much more vexing than a lot of compiled / strongly typed languages as the errors in those languages came sooner. In JavaScript there have been times where it loads and runs, but nothing happens, and I had no idea why, which proved frustrating.
JavaScript is still what I use to introduce programming to new people, because for people who haven't done their dues learning how to use a command-line, the hardest part of getting started with programming is getting your computer set up to do it at all. And since everyone already has a browser, getting started with coding only requires showing them how to open the developer console.
Installing stacks like Rust, Erlang/Elixir, Go and maybe OCaml is so fast these days that you likely will not have halved your coffee by the time it's done.
I agree getting to the browser dev console is instant gratification but I don't view 5 minutes of installation as a punishment from Hell either.
Fair, but most stacks including the previous infamous ones are two or three lightweight installs away. The VSCode/Atom/Sublime generation of IDE replacements made that possible.
I come from an environment (.NET) where setup was a day or two of work but now is a matter of 10 or less minutes).
I can understand NextDoor at least. It’s very neighborhood based, and they need some way to verify that you live where you say you live. If people keep seeing membership in their neighborhood has included those who don’t love in their area, the main attraction of NextDoor will disappear.
I think you're trying to start a different conversation than what I had intended to point out by adding another anecdote to the original comment I was responding to.
Right now there is relatively little liability in gathering personal data about customers but huge benefits to doing so. I believe that there should be regulation governing punishments and protections for consumers whose data may be compromised or mishandled by corporate entities.
As it stands right now a company can leak personal data from their customers and face very few consequences. Rather, the negative consequences of customer data leaks are felt by the customer rather than the corporation that mishandles their data. This is a similar externality-effect as pollution, where a bad actor's malfeasance generates a larger negative impact than what is directly born by the bad actor itself.
We could discuss whether or not NextDoor has a legitimate use for personal identification data, but that's a tangential discussion. My point was supposed to be that any firm that gathers personal data should be assuming a greater amount of liability than they currently are.
True, but you can say that for any company. At least in this case, you can consider their past 5 years, see what moves they make and what statements they have released, and judge whether their words and matching their actions.
Artificial scarcity successfully implemented is still scarcity. For example, trading cards printed in low numbers can drive the prices for those cards high.
But they are not even artificially scarce. The price plummets after purchase immediately. Go buy a used engagement ring for instance. It is tainted for some reason but heavily discounted. Diamonds are not rare and not even that pretty compared to other gems.
I have noticed this with our purchases as well. Because of Prime, most of our online purchases are Amazon-first. Only when they don't carry it do we check elsewhere.
We recently cancelled because of customer service issues with Amazon, but we are close to signing up again. I'm on the fence, but my wife just assumes we'll be back on the wagon, that it's our 'default state'. It makes me wonder whether that by itself is good or bad.
> patrons were happy knowing that this change will send more money to creators.
That could depend on how they asked patrons.
If I was asked if I were in favor of more money going to creators, I would say yes.
If I was asked if I were in favor of paying more to make this happen, I would say no. If I want to send more money to creators, I would opt for a higher patron tier.
I'm pretty sure I remember getting that far. We even figured out how to actually win. I don't remember now how we got the knowledge - this was waaay before the internet and in a third world country.
My kid only used to be exposed to touch screens. Her daycare then introduced them to more traditional computers with a keyboard and mouse, and they adapted fine.
When I started on Java, I was disappointed at the quality of IDEs so much that I resorted to coding in Notepad instead. I was so used to the seamlessness of Borland IDEs. It was only when I did a 30-day trial of IntelliJ that I started using an IDE again.