Or what about sleeping in an RV, parked at different locations each night.

I use currently use puppeteer to do the same thing

JARs are okay, but they still require you to have the java runtime installed in order for them to execute.

You can bundle everything together, or use a commercial JDK with AOT compilation support.

So there's a lot of other things that can be done on the client other than interacting with the DOM. In particular, applications that render intense graphics, or manage a local database could GREATLY benefit from more efficient compiled code, and this would open up possibilities that the current JS engine wouldn't be able to deliver.

That's indeed true, but I wouldn't count Go as an example of “efficient compiled code”. It's way behind of GCC or LLVM in terms of optimizations, and being ahead-of-time-compiled is a drawback, not an asset.

Both GCC and LLVM can compile Go code.

That's a bit of an oversimplification.

About llvm, there's a WIP prototype that doesn't quite work yet[0].

And about GCC, GccGo is behind in Go's version. GCC 7 only supports Go 1.8 (with caveats). Also, it had issues at some point[2] (but this is from 2014, it may have been fixed since then).

And, on a more pragmatic point of view, when talking about Go, the huge majority talks about Go compiled with the standard Go compiler. That's why you here a lot of positive feedback about compile-times for instance.

[0]: http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llgo/trunk/README.TXT [1]: https://golang.org/doc/install/gccgo#Releases [2]: https://talks.golang.org/2014/gocon-tokyo.slide#54

Sometimes you don't realize there's a problem until you try doing it a different way. If you always wait until there's a problem, you're likely to get stuck doing things the hard way. There's nothing wrong with taking the occasional moment to see what new tools are out there, if anything to simply be a bit more efficient. If you're looking for new tools all the time to procrastinate, or simply always hoping something will do the heavy lifting for you then that's another story.

Or the snake one called Nibbles - my 6th grade computer class teacher had made modifications to it adding levels, etc., and had his class play with what he had created. I was just starting to learn Qbasic at the time and he wouldn't let me have the source code :(

Perhaps he was hoping you'd write your own, or find the code? Weren't the games plaintext?

He used QuickBASIC to compile it into an EXE and that was the copy he gave the students to play with.

A statement can also be an opinion, I think the intention was to differentiate from statements that are meant to appear to be facts but are false.

You don't drop an incendiary statement like that without at least citing an example of where that has been the case.

You could quickly drill a small hole in each case, in order to fit a tall button like this one:

https://www.sparkfun.com/products/8605

Also, there's some U2F devices that trigger the approval simply when they are plugged in.

In regards to the length of functions, to me it comes down to whether it is preferable to have the entire content of the function visible to the programmer at the time any changes need to be made, or if there are multiple things going on that can be assessed independently of each other. The idea of setting a hard rule that a function can only be as long as your screen height ignores the context is what is being done within the function, and encourages the programmer to make breaks in places where it may not make sense to do so.