From the article, the fragment about the SF2 sidemount rebreather:

> There are only a few of these computer-controlled devices in the world.

From quick googling I found out that this type of rebreather is "certainly the most popular Sidemount rebreather in the world." [1]. It is relatively inexpensive also (7k EUR). Why are there only a few of them in the world then? Is he talking about some special, modified type of it?

[1] https://www.divestock.com/scuba-force-sf2-sidemount-rebreath...

Out of curiosity - from a legal perspective, is it fine to publish outcome of reverse engineering? I'm always sceptical before doing so myself.

Yes, you're right. I was somehow convinced that this is possible. Which is BTW not a good idea anyway (or at least I really don't like similar concept in Ruby - monkey patching).

Do you know why Go authors decided to put method definitions outside types definitions? Technically I don't see anything to stop the syntax from supporting the otherwise.

Hi, author here. Thanks for your opinion.

> 1. On a daily basis I work in a 200k LOC Ruby project and to me from that perspective lack of static typing is a minefield ;)

> 2. Since I have finally learned how to do proper composition (~a year ago) I haven't use the inheritance even once. Of course, you may say that my project is special, but I can't help feeling that inheritance is often overused.

> 3. Yes, I've also come across opinions that Go's channels are too low level to be used in a large commercial project. But still, as a concept I find them interesting.

> 4. True. But, you can have one goroutine that'll just "guard" that resource and communicate with it from many places using one shared channel.

> 5. TBH I've seen more flame wars about the "space vs tab" thing ;) As I mentioned in the article I don't think that's the best error handling pattern ever invented, but I just like the concept of treating errors as regular return values. IMO it's good to have it at the back of your head, regardless of the language you use.