It was 12 days after 3.5 was released. A lot has changed since then.
The point being take anything in with a view of the times, just like if I were to show you quotes from people 60 years ago saying computers are useless and no one will use them.
Yes, I am using it right now! Previously, I used Trello for task tracking and Google Sheets for visualizing earnings. After building Indiedash, handling tasks as a full-time freelancer has become simpler than ever.
> Clojure seems to be a more widely used and active version
This is a pretty gross oversimplification and it's also a mischaracterization to say it's "a more widely used and active version". I wouldn't even put it in the same catagory as traditional lisps since those will compile down to executables and clojure run in the JVM
> I wouldn't even put it in the same catagory as traditional lisps since those will compile down to executables and clojure run in the JVM
They "kind of" do. `:executable t` does not actually make an executable in the way most people understand it. It's a big blob with lots of stuff you would expect to be stripped out in other languages. Short of paying several grand for Lispworks, you are not going to make true executables in something like SBCL.
In contrast, Clojure with GraalVM is fairly easy to do and will give you smaller binaries.
This was actually very popular with offshoring and the results spoke for themselves. I made a lot of money cleaning up those dumpster fires and it's hard for me to not encourage more of it.
I've picked up work that way too. There are two problems with it, though.
A) After a company has sunk a bundle into offshoring with nothing to show for it, it has less in its budget for me. They may be desperate at that point, but that doesn't mean their checkbook is bottomless.
B) The dream of cheap/subservient/good skilled labor dies hard in management sometimes, and it can take years before management realizes its mistake. Meanwhile, the company may go out of business before it has a chance to come home and pay me the big bucks to clean up its mess.
I do. These companies offer me choices and compete for my business. I can deploy to AWS (Amazon), Azure (MS), Google Cloud, or other competitors. My business will go to the one who gives me the best results for the least money. If they fail to provide me the services I want at a price that seems reasonable, or if I'm unhappy with them for any other reason, I can take my business elsewhere. Freedom and consent lie at the heart of private enterprise.
On the other hand, when a government tells me that I can't use the services I want to use and cannot trade with the people I want to trade with because of politics, and that I have to use different services because they're located in a particular region and favored by the government, that's not freedom, nor is it consensual.
Despite this, do you still recognize the countless tactics businesses use to lock their consumers in into their ecosystem as nonconsensual, or do you view that in a different light still?
You also mention innovation with regards to companies like Meta. How do things like the network effect fit into this model? To be more explicit, suppose I want to migrate off of Messenger to Signal. Meta won't allow bridges, and the people I know don't wish to switch. Surely it is not unreasonable for me to consider my continued usage of Meta's Messenger platform as nonconsensual, and my choices as impaired?
I personally regard this the same when people say stuff like "freedom of speech does not imply freedom of consequences from that speech". Very clearly that betrays the expectations one would reasonably build when they hear such a phrase.
