I would think Lint rules are better for encouraging this and has no run time implications. Easy escape hatches as well if you really want to crack the firewall to ship something urgently.
Have a customer with a 25 y/o Oracle PL/SQL system that basically operates their business and they can barely iterate on it. Every year a new consultancy comes in with their flavour of microservices and tries to subsume some functionality and they choke on the monolith to end all monoliths.
Basically when speed and horizontal scalability are very important, and consistency/durability are less important. It’s also pretty good for unstructured or irregularly structured data that’s hard to write a schema for.
Web scraping or data ingestion from apis might be a reasonable use case. Or maybe consumer apps/games where occasional data loss or inconsistency isn’t a big deal.
It can also be used effectively as a kind of durable cache (with a nice query language) in place of redis/memcached if you give it plenty of ram. While its guarantees or lack thereof aren’t great for a database, they’re pretty good for a cache.
Many of the golden age authors rage from "just" problematic like Asimov to a lot worse (see for more: http://www.jasonsanford.com/blog/2018/2/golden-age-sf-not-go...). I still read these authors but I for one cannot help see the author in their books, and knowledge of their actions certainly influences how I interpret these books. I therefore don't believe in Death of the Author.
I think they're separate issues. "Death of the author" is a principle in criticism: do we care about the author's intention in creating the text? The older version of this was the "New Criticism", which tried to read the text in a vacuum, not paying attention to the historical and biographical context of its composition. But Barthes took this further by saying that the author had no control over the interpretation, even if s/he explicitly tells us what the text means. (A related idea is "reader-response theory", which begins the criticism with the unique response of the individual reader at the time). A simplified litmus test would be if you think a writer has the right to claim that one of their characters is homosexual, when the text doesn't indicate either way.
What you're talking about is a moral judgment, not a critical one. So not saying "this book isn't good because the author was bad", but saying "regardless of the book's qualities, we shouldn't read it because the author was a bad person".
>I for one cannot help see the author in their books, and knowledge of their actions certainly influences how I interpret these books.
This is part of the reason why I avoid reading about authors. Like the practice of symphonies doing auditions blind in order to avoid bias, I don't want my personal opinions of an author's life to taint my evaluation of their work.
Plato was a racist, had ~50 slaves and was a convicted public masturbator. Should we throw away his phylosophy work too?
How many historical works will we be left with after we've gone through all historical figures up to emancipation? We probably will have to give up even the theory of evolution.
We should not throw it away, but we should keep it in mind when learning from him. Cause if we don't, adopting his values and thinking can slowly lead us toward slave owning and so on. It is related.
In that case, I would think that reading books by a particular author could become "less fun" once you know about their behaviour. In the same way, I used to have some Rolf Harris novelty songs on my iPod playlist for the kids - and sone Gary Glitter. Listening to those songs once they were convicted, certainly became "less fun".
I didn't care to read any of the Ender novels before or after I learned about the author's personal life. What does that mean about my enjoyment of Asimov books before and after reading this article?
It means you're an adult, capable of simultaneously recognizing the merits of artistic works and complex ethical realities.
Are Caravaggio's paintings less beautiful because he killed someone? I think to suggest so is absurd. It doesn't mean you have to like the artist as a person, but to directly tie the value of a work of art to its creator is dangerously reductive.
Serious question, though - how do you feel about performance art? Would you go to a concert by an excellent singer who beat up his wife, or was a convicted paedophile? Would you feel quite comfortable standing in the crowd and singing along with them? I'd suggest quite possibly not, even though the quality of their singing voice was undiminished.
I suspect that there is a spectrum here where some forms of art or expression are more directly tied to the nature of the creator than others.
Both of your examples are about social / public acceptability of the artist as a person, not the evaluation of their artwork itself. Of course most people would be uncomfortable associating with such a person, but I don’t think that’s inherently relevant to their work.
Nowadays we are in a marketing-focused era where serious aesthetic thought is basically unknown to everyone but academics, so the natural result is that the identity of an artist is often more important than their work.
(Side note: performance art refers to a separate art field, e.g. Marina Abramović. Performing arts is the right term to use for music, singing, etc.)
But yes, of course there are various approaches to aesthetics and certainly some would say that the artist as individual plays more of a role in some genres than others.
