None of the “rough edges” needed to be “discovered in real time”. Folks have predicted plenty of this for years. It’s also just basic security principles at work.
“Top agentic and AI developer workloads like GitHub Copilot, Claude Code, ComfyUI, Cursor and more now run across all modern PC silicon – making Windows the ideal platform for AI-assisted development”
None of these tools make use of local GPU whatsoever.
> None of these tools make use of local GPU whatsoever.
You can use local models with most of those, you’d just need to get something like Ollama, LM Studio or vLLM working - but that’s the boring and not flashy part, it’s probably easier to name the dev tools.
On that page you can click “read sample” and then search for “chicken” and the reference on page 3 seems to be the main source of that claim. Where that is quoting, I’m not sure.
Thanks! So the connection between the tainted taste (source on that still unknown) and this essential oil of locust is just Lockwood spitballing:
> Although the insects had no defensive chemicals in their bodies, a diet saturated with locusts rendered the eggs and flesh of chickens inedible. Studies at the time found that the locusts were remarkably rich in a “reddish-brown oil of very pungent and penetrating odor,” and perhaps this accounts for the tainted meat.
No one is arguing cameras shouldn’t exist. In fact, back up cameras are mandatory in the US. But replacing mirrors and windows with cameras is bad, actually.
GitHub’s data architecture (lots and lots of projects in a hierarchical distribution with immutable, highly transaction-based data elements) ought to be easily shardable to allow for massive scale-out. Especially a decade after acquisition by Microsoft. Even a major increase in activity (which was surely predicted internally years ago, given the marketing around AI) should be easily handled by a company with their resources. These repeated failures are indicative of massive mismanagement and misinvestment.
Microsoft has been letting GitHub operate independently since up to very recently. Seems to imply the problems could be systemically GitHub’s and Microsoft is now stepping in and correcting the ship.
Is anyone actually mad about this, or do people just bring it up to stir the pot? Who cares what the FAQ says? They've worked out a way to add it easily in a backwards compatible way that can solve some problems. They had not identified this solution at the time they wrote the FAQ, and Go has been perfectly usable without this feature for 16 years.
What’s the correction? The two claims are not in conflict. Saying “we don’t expect to ever add X” is not equivalent to “we never wanted to add X.” It simply means that they didn’t think it would happen, which can coexist with an underlying willingness to consider it if a suitable approach appeared.
Clearly we don’t need this feature. Just because the Go team decides to implement a feature doesn’t imply that they must think that the language needs the feature. You’re searching for contradictions where none exist.
Most programming language features are not strictly needed. They’re just quality of life improvements that are on balance a good addition to the language.
We care that time and time again, when anyone ever brings up a criticism of the language, they’re told that everything is just fine and it’s not a problem and we just don’t get the Go Philosophy. There’s not a problem, stop trying to make Go like every other language, and changing things would make the language more complicated and worse.
Then when the language is inevitably changed for the better, resolving the complaint, suddenly it was always going to happen and it was just a matter of getting the details right.
Every other language community I can think of is more than willing to acknowledge the shortcomings of their language. “Yeah, this kind of sucks in principle but it’s not something that gets in the way in practice” is a fine perspective. So is “this was a tradeoff; we went in this direction and these are the resulting downsides”. But the golang community practically trips over themselves to constantly argue that obvious shortcomings in the language are actually a good thing and we just don’t get it.
Nobody is saying the language shouldn’t improve. We’ve all been begging the language to improve. But we’re also tired of the constant, obvious, and shameless gaslighting from the community whenever things do get better. You aren’t going to like the comparison, but it’s extremely Trumpian.
Yeah, I worked with a guy in the late 2010s - one of the most painful people I've ever worked with - who would tell anyone that would listen that Go (as it was in 2018) was the perfect programming language - it had all the features you'd ever need - no more, no less. It doesn't need generics, the package management story is fine etc. Thankfully he's been out of my life for a long time now but I believe he's still writing Go, and I bet that he's telling anyone that will listen that Go (as it is in 2026) is the perfect programming language and that its implementation of generics was necessary and perfect etc.
He wasn't the only one but he certainly took it to the extreme.
This is an outlier. The Go team and community never endorsed that. In fact, their position has always been the opposite. To give just one example, see [1].
I think it’s pretty clear this post was a response to the clear dogma within the community.
> But we need help from everyone. Remember that none of the decisions in Go are infallible; they’re just our best attempts at the time we made them, not wisdom received on stone tablets.
reply