2,085 karma · joined January 7, 2009
I agree with you on above statement. Though my conclusion is different from yours. I think in the future the line among DBA/SysAdmin/Developers will become even more blurred , developers will be trained/required to take over more and more work from DBA and sysadmin (DevOps anyone?); consequently, the demand for dedicated roles such as DBA and sysadmins will diminish. Hope I am wrong though.
Thanks for the detailed reply. You're one of the HNers whose opinions I highly respect. Wish HN had the following features like Twitter.
My understanding of Scala is very superficial. So my opinion is obviously very biased at this moment. I've been immersing myself in Clojure and ClojureScript on and off for most of this year. Learning Scala will be on my todo list for the new year. Hope I will have something to share then. I may change my opinion though, should the new version of Scala rectify most of the flaws, given the fact that Rod Johnson joined TypeSafe, who tends to have the gift to simplify complexities.
And no, I don't like Java either and consider that it's reasonable that the community needs a more expressive language on JVM and leave Java as a supporting role to write underlying performance-critial JVM libraries just like C to the native libs.
Now, it seems to me that that turmoil is inching into the backend and JVM. A wrong selection of technology stack would cause a huge waste of time investment. That's why some of us stand up and say no to Scala, which has been aggressively marketed as Java++ for the past few years, and seems to gain some momentum. I personally consider that's a dangerous sign, as the objective of Scala (IMHO) is to replace Java as the mainstream industry language. With the complexity of Scala, can you imagine the average Java programmer starts to write libraries in Scala? That would be disastrous to the whole JVM eco system. We all know what happened to C++.
I personally would go with Clojure, which is at least philosophically coherent. I feel comfortable working in it. Even it may not become mainstream, I am OK with that. Life is short, be happy.
Like CoffeeScript, this language should mainly follow OOP paradigm, while allows certain kinds of FP features, such as first class functions, seq, etc. Immutability is not forced. Basically, a Scala-minus -- Scala without Haskell stuffs, and much reduced FP features.
1. One civilization/nation conquered/destroyed all others
2. One civilization/nation managed to assembly a spaceship and launched it to fly to the closest Solaris -- Alpha Centauri
The first goal seems easy and tempting to follow, but turns out very difficult. In the end, to win the wars over those nations that often have huge cities (20plus) and perfectly armed with numerous tanks and battleships, you often resort to nukes to take them over. In more difficult levels such as deity level, it's very likely your populous cities get nuked. After a short while, I started focusing on building spaceships instead and had a few wins and felt better that way.
In retrospect, it may reflect the believing of the designer Sid Mier's, whom I totally agree with and respect for. Following the same spirit, we as human beings might as well put our inner conflicts aside and target the space instead.
I don't accuse them of not saving the world, but Ruby and Rails lost a great opportunity to dominate the web community. If Rails were as performant as Node.js, I doubt lots of companies would change gears.
Even Twitter went public recently and posed to challenge big guys such as Google, Facebook, they've lost my respect as a technology company.
Microsoft is the only major technology/software company that thrives well in both the consumer and enterprise space, giving up Bing and Xbox is giving up a huge part of the consumer space, which Microsoft have said they intend to hold on to. Selling Bing and Xbox is incredibly short-sighted as well. Doing so will almost instantly guarantee that Google will dominate search and maybe even media, and I’d hate for that to happen. Google is already making some very monopolistic moves these days, and if they get more opportunity to do so, I doubt they’ll stop. The market needs options, and Microsoft’s offerings are a very good option.
Adobe of today is like RIMM in 2007 before the original iPhone was announced.
BTW, Adobe seems to be a vulnerable giant to be taken over. Not sure why no startups target them.
This is way diplomatic. Though for me your article has no beef, the Pros and Cons of Go has been repeated here for so many times. I was expecting to see the v.s. stuffs, why this, why that, your thought process and experiments. Right, those are the beefs I wanted from your article but didn't find.
>I think the choice was much more of a proactive choice - we liked Go, we like the way it fitted us - good for fast iterative development upfront, good for the long term, fun to write code in and with a lot of advantages that come with the fact that it's a language designed today - with a lot of lessons learned from the past.
This is not convincing though. As much as I admire Ken Thompson and Rob Pike, I tend to agree with the perspective that Go to C is like Plan9 to Unix. Of course, I could be wrong and am glad to be corrected by insightful comparisons and opinions.
I know I don't belong to the targeted demographics, just out of curiosity.