Few things are more Microsofty than a team reaching over to a competitor's language instead of using their own and to boot none of the reasons given so far seem credible, good job to the team nonetheless.
I think it's a mature decision, besides, Go is an open source project, calling it "a competitor's language" is a bit derisive. The developers behind Go, Typescript, C#, etc were designing languages well before they were hired by those companies, I don't think they consider their languages a "google" or "microsoft" specific language per se.
Totally agree about reasons, they have some hidden agenda behind this decision that they don't want to disclose. Rewriting in native code allows step-by-step rewrite using JS runtime with native extensions, but moving to a different VM mandates big rewrite.
My most plausible guess would be that compiler writers don't want to dig into native code and performance, writing a TS to Go translator looks like a more familiar task for them. Lack of JS version performance analysis anywhere in the announcements kinda confirms this.
Heh. I care about results from my colleagues and collaborators, not their tool preferences. If your topic branches and commit messages make sense, that's what matters — because those are our touch points of collaboration.
They can probably easily find a jury of ordinary people who have never been denied insurance or don't have anyone in their friend or immediate family group who were denied insurance.
There are 305 million Americans with health insurance. Most of them only have ever used their health insurance for things like annual checkups, routine illnesses like colds and flus, routine vaccinations and lab tests, cuts, sprains, burns, allergies, prescriptions, routine prenatal care, routine pediatric care, maybe something more serious like pneumonia or an STD or a broken bone, and similar.
Even the most penny pinching insurance companies usually pay for those things without any hassle. As a result polling shows that most Americans are actually reasonably satisfied with their own health insurance in that regard. Lots of dissatisfaction with the high premiums and deductibles though.
It's only a small percent who encounter something that the insurance company balks at.
Well, they might take it if you don't have an independent board of directors, that you browbeat into it, and some shareholders sue, and are able to substantiate that to a judge via a long legal case. In that case, you might be upset, but your investors won't be.
EDIT: Some facts are too dangerous to share, because of how they make people feel.
It is highly unlikely anyone here will ever have to worry about this problem, the odds are worse than winning the lottery [1] [2]. ~90% of startups end up in failure [3], for example.
