text stringlengths 0 2.35k |
|---|
**Ian Lopshire:** I am 100% against ever having implicit returns. There should never be a return without the return keyword, even in these small, anonymous functions. I would say no to this proposal all the way, just on that single point. |
**Kris Brandow:** Yeah. Maybe this will be an unpopular opinion because-- I don't know. When I look at the examples and I look at that code, I can obviously see, maybe if it was also just like, if it's multiline, you're not allowed to not specify the return... But when I look at this compact code, I'm like, "Oh, but th... |
So I think that's one of the things-- I don't know if it's... I think -- yeah, in JavaScript, you don't have to specify the return. It'll just return the last thing, and that's always confusing to me, because I'm just like, "Where is this return value?" I'm like, "Oh, right, it just does it magically for you." |
**Ian Lopshire:** There's some talk in the issue on GitHub about changing the syntax, so you can just not specify the function parameter types or return types, just the names instead. I think that actually goes quite a ways to get there. We already allow for some of the generic stuff. You can omit generic types, and al... |
**Natalie Pistunovich:** To summarize this, I want to read yet another message from Bill, which I really like, "Let's not make things easy to do. Let's focus on making things easy to understand." This circles back very nicely to our previous conversation about simplicity and how nice it is in Go. I like that about the ... |
Let's say we had the tune for unpopular opinion now... We kind of discussed that, although it was quite popular, but there's all sorts of opinions out there. And this has been an interesting hour. I think it's first time we tried this format, at least from what I know, that we're kind of not going for a topic and discu... |
**Kris Brandow:** \[40:02\] I feel like we should have more of these nice little "Let's do some coverage of Go News and talk about things." Although, hopefully, in the future, it's not me being on a soapbox. |
**Natalie Pistunovich:** So what is a soapbox, for those who still reside outside of the US? |
**Kris Brandow:** A soapbox, quite literally, it's an actual crate they use to ship soap in, but the terminology comes from when you used to have a little town square, where someone wanted to give a speech-- |
**Natalie Pistunovich:** Hmm... Like a Hyde park thing. |
**Kris Brandow:** ...they would put a soapbox down and stand on top of it, so they could be above everybody else, so everybody could hear them in the crowd. So it's like when you get up on a soapbox, it's kind of like preaching, or basically talking to a gathering of people. |
**Natalie Pistunovich:** Lots of learnings in today's episode. Thank you. |
**Kris Brandow:** Yeah. I like the diversity of this panel too, because it's like, we've got you, who's not in the US and has never lived in the US, so you're not in tune with this stuff... And then we've got two people from the US. |
**Natalie Pistunovich:** Although I said I do speak some American, but... Nope, not enough. |
**Kris Brandow:** \[laughs\] There's a lot of American to learn. I think there's some people in America that don't speak American, so... |
**Natalie Pistunovich:** Kris and Ian and everybody who listened, thank you very much for joining. It was a great conversation, and see you next week. |
**Break:** \[41:18\] |
**Kris Brandow:** There was another thing that I wanted to point out about this, and it's a slight criticism, I guess, of the-- I guess it was the criticism of the way they were framing the conference in Florida, right? And it's around one key phrase that I think a lot of people don't understand as a dog whistle, but i... |
**Natalie Pistunovich:** Yeah. We were just briefly chatting before the beginning of this episode, and when this came up, I told you, Kris, I was surprised to learn that. Definitely, as much as I interact with the US in my free time and in my professional time, somehow this went over my head, this term being signaling ... |
**Kris Brandow:** \[44:27\] I feel like either just pointing out that childcare is available, I think is one way of doing it, like "Hey, we have childcare", or just being child-friendly, or kids are welcome or something like that. Just make it actually about the thing that you're trying to include. Because you're tryin... |
So I think it's like you're thinking about people that have that type of family situation and wanting to welcome them into the space. So I think just pointing out like "Kid-friendly" or "Kids are welcome" is a good stepping stone there, or a good first step. |
I'd love it if we could finally get to a place - this is along down the road - where it's just known that "Yeah, we're going to have childcare available because people have kids. So what are they supposed to do?" There's lots of single parents as well who have children. So it's like, are they just not allowed to come t... |
So yeah, I think if I read something else like, "Oh, kids are welcome", I think that would be positive. I think it's like a tough balance at the end of the day as well though, because whenever you choose to put the spotlight on something, you'll always unintentionally move the spotlight away from other things. So I can... |
**Natalie Pistunovich:** I have multiple follow-up questions. |
**Kris Brandow:** Go for it. \[laughter\] |
**Natalie Pistunovich:** It's probably a very safe assumption to say that this word or this phrase in the announcement of GopherCon does not mean that, in my opinion. But I am not part of the queer community. What do you think? My opinion here is only a small thing, not being part of that, and this is not signaling to ... |
**Kris Brandow:** Yeah. It's definitely not intentional. I know the people that organize GopherCon. I've been a conference chair before. I do not think in any way that this was an intentional "We're trying to exclude--" I mean, it'd be stupid if it was anyway, because they're saying, "We're moving out of Florida becaus... |
At the end of the day, being inclusive is more than just trying and more of what your intentions are. It's what your impact is at the end of the day as well, so avoiding these types of things. There was a similar problem - it might still be; I haven't checked up on it recently... But with the Gopher Slack, where there ... |
**Natalie Pistunovich:** And then what does real name even mean? |
**Kris Brandow:** Exactly. So it's like those policies are also like dog whistles to conservatives saying, "Oh, yeah, yeah, you're welcome here. We're trying to make sure that the trans people aren't in this space, because we make it more difficult for them to exist in it." It's always a difficult thing, because I know... |
\[48:07\] Just calling things like this out a little bit, or as some people calling in... This isn't meant to be like attacking GopherCon or anything obviously, or Gopher Slack, but just pointing out to people like, "Hey, you should probably avoid these types of phrases in the future, and you should probably get some m... |
**Natalie Pistunovich:** Yeah. Another interesting thing to discuss is when you say-- I don't know how to phrase that... The dry meaning of family-friendly - does it mean friendly for families that don't have kids? Can you bring a partner, or if you have multiple, can you bring your partners? Is that part of what peopl... |
**Kris Brandow:** Yeah. |
**Natalie Pistunovich:** Does that include as a family thing? |
**Kris Brandow:** That's amazing. I hope you guys actually do that, because that would be so awesome. But I don't think in many people's minds in the US, when you say family-friendly, that is what comes up. If I were to say-- even pushing away the conservative stuff, if I hear the term family-friendly, I'm specifically... |
And I think when it comes to the polyamorous community, where there are multiple partners and all different types of defined relationships, I don't know if there's anybody in the US that would be like, "Yes, when we say family-friendly, we mean people that are poly." I just don't think that would be something that thos... |
**Natalie Pistunovich:** Ian, what are your thoughts? |
**Ian Lopshire:** Yeah. I mean, I just think, especially in the United States, people have spent a lot of money over the last couple decades promoting the idea that a family is a man, a woman and kids. I think that's part of the problem with the phrase family-friendly, right? It's that it alludes to this specific ideal... |
**Kris Brandow:** I don't even know if it includes single parents with kids really, because that's another thing in the US - it's just not really considered a family to a portion of the country. And I think that's why this phrase is such an awkward one. |
I have another suggestion as well, if you'd like it - just try maybe just listing out these benefits that you have in a prominent place, of saying, "Hey, we offer discounted tickets for partners, and you get these benefits." Just make it prominent, without necessarily having to wrap it in some phrasing. So I think that... |
**Natalie Pistunovich:** \[52:22\] If/when you are in a relationship, would you find it interesting to traveling with a partner who is not interested in Go? |
**Kris Brandow:** I'll defer to Ian. |
**Ian Lopshire:** No, I think so... Especially if it's like in Chicago, I think a city that is popular for tourism - yeah, of course; especially if you're going to spend time before-- |
**Natalie Pistunovich:** Or any other conference also. |
**Ian Lopshire:** Yeah, exactly. But if you're spending time before and after, I think that's a great option. But also, just during the conference, I think it's a great option. I would consider it. |
**Natalie Pistunovich:** You work in different companies. Sometimes your companies are sponsoring at those conferences, including different GopherCons. How do you see companies support such a decision? Do you expect most sponsors to say, "Yes, we support that. We will bear additional costs with you. We will back out. W... |
**Kris Brandow:** I mean, I think generally most companies are going to sponsor something that GopherCon wouldn't have a problem with this type of benefit or something. I mean, at least I hope they wouldn't. I think if they do have a problem, I think that's like a signal that, hey, maybe this is a sponsor that you migh... |
So I think truly if you as a conference organizer - do support this sort of thing? And I think it applies broadly to the Go community as well, on things that aren't -- anytime it comes with money; even deciding to work at a company... It's like, when it comes down to money, that's where you really see what your values ... |
I hope that with the sponsors of things like GopherCon or GopherCon Europe, that they would not have a problem with calling out this type of arrangement. But yeah, I don't know. But yeah, if it was me personally, like if I was organizing a conference and a sponsor said, "Hey, I noticed that you have this benefit for pe... |
**Natalie Pistunovich:** It's particularly relevant because tomorrow begins the Pride month. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.