It was not a solo activity for our kids. We could directly view everything they were doing online the entire time.

When I was a kid I had a friend whose parents, or mom rather, went to similar lengths to ensure all gaming was monitored closely by her. She would turn the game console off if she saw anything she decided was not to her liking.

This was all fair when we were 7-8, but she insisted on doing it well into his teenage years. This level of extreme control and micromanagement was not good for their relationship or his personal development, to put it mildly.

Every time I read HN comments from parents declaring their child will not have a phone until they turn 16 (another comment in this thread) or how they’ll lock their kids out of games and social media completely I think back to my friend whose mom was extremely controlling in the same way.

Young kids need tight controls, but this needs to be loosened as they age. Parenting discussions really need to come with age ranges because what’s appropriate changes so fast from year to year.

Also you have to consider the ramifications of such behavior if that gets public, I mean could possibly be the source of bullying and what not.

As a child we were de incentivized to playing games with the computer. The schema was:

A) computer you can have, because is useful beyond playing, consoles, no way. Forget it “that is stupidizing BS”

B) No money for games. Other SW would be bought, but rarely games.

That moved us to start spending time with other things in the computer, like programming our own games.

Of course today that is all difficult to impossible, by design, without ostracizing the kids.

Sounds barely realistic, when school are using iPads, education is one URL away from entertainment crack and parental controls on iOS are a joke.

1. Ask your school to change their policies. Coordinate with other parents. Make it clear to the school that if they don't start to enforce these policies then you will hold the school directly responsible for any harm that comes to your child in the environment they create.

2. Pick different schools. (Home School, Private school) if you can afford it. Charter schools may be an option.

Both of these require sacrifice on your part and neither are easy. But no one should ever think parenting is easy.

In US, we restrict alcohol kids until they're 21. Pornography is poison.

Also in I want to say about half the states (could be wrong here, but at least a few), it is legal to drink well below 18 in a private home.

-------------

Example, wisconsin:

>Can an underage person possess and consume alcohol beverages on licensed premises? Yes. Persons under age 21 may possess and consume alcohol beverages if they are with their parents, guardians or spouses of legal drinking age; but this is at the discretion of the licensee. The licensed premises may choose to prohibit consumption and possession of alcohol beverages by underage persons. (Sec. 125.07(1), Wis. Stats.)

The drinking laws in at least ~half the USA are a lot looser than most people think. If the parents are ok with it the kid can generally drink somehow.

https://www.revenue.wi.gov/Pages/FAQS/ise-atundrg.aspx#undrg...

The fall in alcohol consumption is directly tied to a fall in socialization writ-large. That isn't a win, it's a tragedy.

Frankly, these half-assed laws disenfranchise an already not-permitted-to-vote populace. But somehow these "kids" can be declared as adults if they are 16 and having sex or courts deem them 'adults', but simultaneously find them to be parental property.

Glad I dont have children. The situation is a toxic cesspool.

We also lock up our alcohol, as many parents have chosen to do for generations.

Why would they? They grew up being 100% controlled with 0 privacy. They don't even know it doesn't have to be like that. Then, it was their parents violating their privacy, now it's government and corporations.

Most 5-year olds should be allowed to close the bathroom door while doing their business, they should not be permitted to access the internet privately.

Your first comment didn't mention age, so they made a comment about a broader interpretation of the idea.

I do not agree at all with this conclusion.

What proportion of the scam ads do you think this approach caught?

It's more like if the health inspector found e coli in the spaghetti, so Facebook threw out the spaghetti then said "trust us, you don't need to check the macaroni, it's fine."

I had a colleague who was member of a dance club, then he had to move to another district, making it super uncomfortable to continue on a regular base - up until today they are calling him every few weeks if he can attend because lack of men

anyhow seems useful in the very top layers where you basically just want bubble the useful errors modeled elsewhere to a top layer that can appropriately handle them. I don't think a crate should abdicate from modeling the error domain any more than they should abdicate from modeling the other types.

I'm not saying the error domain is small per se.

Instead, one argument I'm making: what you're describing about errors bubbling up to the top layer, is what happens with the overwhelming majority of errors in my experience.

Whether the error space is large or small, just wait until you have an immediate need to treat one error different from the rest. It happens, it's just not common.

I didn't steelman the case for when to use enums, but in short: In a tiny error space or as valuable documentation.

(The doc value is undermined somewhat when projects use 1-big-error and functions that eg only returns 3 of the 6 possible errors)

I'm not advocating removing an Error enum. Just that writing one can and should be postponed, saving a lot of maintenance edits.

    what you're describing about errors bubbling up to the top layer, is what happens with the overwhelming majority of errors in my experience.

Yes, it's just harder. We usually have a pretty good idea what callers want from the happy path, but the range of things that callers may or may not want to do in case of an error is very broad.

This is very hand-wavy, but I think we're talking at a very high level of abstraction here. My main point is to suggest that there is more of a balancing act here than perhaps your words suggest.

But that's exactly what you do when you...

>... try to indicate the different types of errors that could occur and what type of information needs to be included to be useful to the caller.

Modelling the error domain means to decide which possible distinctions matter and which don't. This is not self evident. It's you imagining what users may want to do with your errors.

Is it enough for the caller to know that some string you're parsing is invalid or do they need to know what it is exactly that makes it invalid?

If you decide to just pass on everything you happen to know based on your current implementation then you are putting restrictions on future changes to that implementation, potentially including the use of third party libraries.

What if you find a shortcut or a library that makes your parser 10 times faster but doesn't provide this detailed information?

What I see a lot in Rust is that massive amounts of implementation details are leaked via errors. thiserror actually encourages this sort of implementation leak:

  #[derive(Error, Debug)]
  pub enum MyError {
      Io(#[from] io::Error),
      Glob(#[from] globset::Error),
  }

Your example is interesting actually because there are real differences in those types of errors. IO errors are different from the globset errors. It is reasonable to assume that you would want to handle them differently. If your function can actually have both errors as a consumer I would want to know that so I can make the correct decisions in context. If you don't have a way to signal to my code that both happen you've deprived me of the tools to do my own proper error modeling and handling.

You are implying that there is one correct and self evident set of distinctions. I disagree with that. In library design, you're always making assumptions about what users may want. In my opinion, this is even harder when modelling errors, because there are so many possible ways in which callers might want to respond.

>Your example is interesting actually because there are real differences in those types of errors. IO errors are different from the globset errors.

Of course. I'm not complaining about the distinction between io errors and globbing errors here but about the fact that the globset library and its specific error type is leaked.

What if someone (say fastburningsushi) comes along and creates a glob library that absolutely smokes this one? :P

"Although we entertained occasional thoughts about implementing one of the major languages of the time like Fortran, PL/I, or Algol 68, such a project seemed hopelessly large for our resources: much simpler and smaller tools were called for. All these languages influenced our work, but it was more fun to do things on our own."

-- https://www.nokia.com/bell-labs/about/dennis-m-ritchie/chist...

People arguing for UNIX/C, also tend to forget the decade of systems languages that predates them, starting with JOVIAL in 1958.

They also forget that after coming up with UNIX/C, they went on to create Plan 9, which was supposed to use Alef, abandoned its designed, later acknowledege lack of GC as an key issue, created Inferno and Limbo, finalizing with contributions to Go's original design.

"Alef appeared in the first and second editions of Plan 9, but was abandoned during development of the third edition.[1][2] Rob Pike later explained Alef's demise by pointing to its lack of automatic memory management, despite Pike's and other people's urging Winterbottom to add garbage collection to the language;[3] also, in a February 2000 slideshow, Pike noted: "…although Alef was a fruitful language, it proved too difficult to maintain a variant language across multiple architectures, so we took what we learned from it and built the thread library for C."[4]"

-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alef_(programming_language)

UNIX and C creators moved on, apparently those that whorship them haven't got the history lesson up to date.

Outdated may sometimes be a euphemism for one of the above but usually when I see it in a discussion it just means "old" or "out of fashion" instead.

However for pretty much any dev I would hire for a job they can get to grips with a technology that's older pretty quickly. Where it does get dicey is when good dev just refuses to work with it. For those devs, I think, when they hold that opinion it typically means one of those other reasons is behind their refusal.

I mean, one of those reasons is "When I leave this job will I be able to get another job" is a huge deeply life affecting one.

If you want me to work on COBOL from 1988 then you've limited my work prospects to one of a very few employers in the country at a very specific pay range. If I instead tell you to eat a fat one and go with $language_de_jour the number of employers and potential salary range is much, much larger.

I know devs like to say they would hire anyone, but they're not the ones hiring. At best you get to interview people already prefiltered by HR which... looks for keywords in CV.

I've never found it too difficult to get hired even when the requirements don't list something I've done already.

This is not necessarily a problem except that they had to live in the original HCL v1 landscape which makes them awkward syntactically.

... What? How is modules a function call? It's just a hierarchy, everything about/with modules is still declarative.

> HCL 2 has loops and conditionals. It is most definitely imperative.

So what? Just because there is loops and conditionals doesn't mean it's suddenly imperative.

How exactly you do loops in HCL? Last time I used it, you still used declarative configuration for that, and use `for_each` as an declared option, you don't "call for_each which returns config", all that happens inside of HCL/TF, because it is declarative.

Did something change like yesterday or are people even here on HN so ignorant about what declarative vs imperative actually means?

I don't understand why there is a distinction between for each in a standard language vs for_each in HCL2. They are both do something by iterating over something else at runtime. The syntax isn't what matters here.

I think maybe you are mistaken in your own distinction between declarative and imperative.

Declarative: Tell the computer what you want the result to be like, and the computer figures out how to do it.

for_each in Terraform is very much declarative, just like modules. Compare how you'd do the same thing with JS or any other (imperative) language you know, and I think it must be clear what the difference between the two is.

I have read terraform modules where I had to execute the logic to know what got produced which moves it from your imperative description to the declarative description as far as I'm concerned.