Are we pretending the US/NATO hasn't been interfering with the world's economy for the past decades? Or free trade here means the US being the sheriff of the world, forcing everyone else to use their currency, and bringing "freedom and democracy" to whoever thinks of challenging that?
There's plenty that the U.S. government does that it shouldn't do, and it's out of scope for this discussion.
When it comes to globalization, there is a legit role for hegemonic military power, and it's to keep trade lanes open. So for example, interdicting Somali pirates or Houthi rebels or keeping the Straight of Hormuz open would be legit uses of force. Sinking suspected drug boats in the Caribbean or imposing their own blockade would not be. Providing a stable currency is legit, using that currency to impose sanctions on countries or individuals that do things you do not like is not legit.
There is another conversation to be had about the use of power and how enforcing your ideals often comes into conflict with the values of your ideals themselves, but that is another conversation, not for this thread.
The US did not create a neutral global free market. It created and maintains a US-centered international order that is relatively open for trade when openness aligns with American strategic interests and becomes coercive when it does not.
> Providing a stable currency is legit
The US does not "provide" a stable currency, it outright forces everyone to use it.
> how enforcing your ideals often comes into conflict with the values of your ideals themselves
The US/NATO couldn't care less about enforcing their "ideals". This is all about economic gain. It is very odd how liberal ideals must be enforced upon Iran, but not upon Saudi Arabia, which is a US ally, no?
> but that is another conversation, not for this thread
So discussing the use of force in the global economy is not fit for a thread about free-trade?
> That being said, has Akka started making full use of JVM's new green threads? Has Java itself started introducing immutability and STM / share-nothing as first-class citizens?
Amazing how it doesn't even cross your mind that there are trade-offs to those choices. Green threads are awesome, but guess what, they come at a cost. Same for share-nothing semantics.
> Has anybody rolled up their sleeves and said "Alright, BEAM VM's reign is over, I am making the same or better runtime as them in Java / Clojure!"?
You are again presupposing the BEAM has an absolute superiority over the JVM. "Better runtime" makes no sense on its own. Better is always relative to something. Better for whom? For what?
I'd bet that you work on a traditional CRUD enterprise software, and that IO(the database) is the real bottleneck of your app. In that case, sure, the BEAM is a solid choice(so is Python, Ruby and PHP nowadays). But let's please not pretend that is all there is to software engineering.
Any good reason for your rude tone? If we are going to invoke the what crossed somebody's mind trope, I'd lead with that when talking to you -- did it cross your mind to speak calmly and not assume something "did not cross" somebody's mind?
RE: your other similarly rude comment, I have not "appealed to authority" anywhere. I said that I have used multiple PLs / runtimes and made an informed choice... for me. I don't intend to add "...for me" after each sentence. It's redundant and obviously implied when it comes to tech because obviously people have made well-working prod systems with combinations of bash and Perl ages ago. So obviously people can make nearly everything work.
If you don't intend to discuss out of position of curiosity but want to jump on people then I am not interested.
Your first comment assumed I was "speed-running to a conclusion and squinting too hard", and this was "similar to the weird childish name-calling". I think that is in the same area(or worse) than saying "Amazing how X didn't even cross your mind". And sorry, but invoking that you have experience with X, Y, Z and thus your opinion is informed after criticizing some technology IS an appeal to authority.
> If you don't intend to discuss out of position of curiosity
I'm not the one making sweeping statements on the superiority of one piece of technology. Reading your other response, I think you are the one who have little to no curiosity in understanding how you might be wrong.
The JVM is perfectly capable of Golang-style green threads now. As for Erlang, the creator of Clojure have commented in the past on why he dislikes the Actor model, and I think it is a fair criticism. Sometimes I see people praising Erlang VM as some panacea in which all the VMs should strive to be like. This is overly simplistic in my opinion, and ignores the huge trade-offs that the Erlang VM has.
You might be speed-running to a conclusion and squinting too hard if you use the word "panacea". Similar to the weird childish name-calling people do in Rust threads (somebody met one brainless zealot and now of course they'll judge a community of hundreds of thousands of devs by that one loony).
I used Java, Golang, Rust, Elixir (so Erlang).
My opinion is informed. STM / share-nothing-actors lend themselves amazingly well to online services for many reasons, better explained by other people and documented elsewhere (and I did not come here to advocate but to express preference and offer the take of somebody who has been around).
I am not denying that the JVM might have almost caught up in the meantime. More than a decade ago it did not.
And yes the BEAM VM is absolutely and markedly _not_ a panacea. It has a few weird sharp edges. It's just that in my work I have found having to avoid them still worth it compared to the alternatives (global mutability and more primitive parallelism which was the case for the JVM for decades).
I have used Clojure(JVM), Elixir(so Erlang) and a bit of Golang professionally too. So my opinion "is informed" too for that matter, but this kind of appeal to authority adds nothing to the discussion.
> I am not denying that the JVM might have almost caught up in the meantime. More than a decade ago it did not.
This presupposes that the JVM had something to catch up in the meantime. Again, this lacks nuance and brings nothing to the table. The JVM makes different trade-offs than the Erlang/Golang VM does, and has different strengths and weaknesses. Both of your comments completely ignores that.
> It's just that in my work I have found having to avoid them still worth it compared to the alternatives (global mutability and more primitive parallelism which was the case for the JVM for decades).
Clojure runs on the JVM and avoids mutability pretty well. It is amazing for writing concurrent software, and has been for many years(i.e more than a decade ago).
> Similar to the weird childish name-calling people do in Rust threads
I believe it is more complicated than simply “throwing money at industries”. It seems to me that in China, the Government actually runs the country, while in the US, private capital does.
It depends. For a lot of hardware it's actually easier to get working on linux, because the driver is just part of the kernel and you don't have to do anything special, including manually installing drivers, to get it working.
There are some cases where hardware support on Linux is suboptimal, such as Nvidia cards and many fingerprint readers, but things are a LOT better now than they used to be. Most consumer laptops and desktops will run linux just fine.
In 2022 we got new zen 5 amd cpus almost when they came out, windows did not recognize a bunch of stuff and had to find and download individual drivers. In linux (ubuntu) everything worked out of the box, except only that the LTS release did not support the kernel that supported the new mobos yet and had to install the rolling release instead.
I liked the apple II, and the TRS 80 as I rather like basic. And then I didn’t hate DOS, and then I actively hated the graphical shell of Windows 3, but could not afford a Macintosh -so suffered through it where I had to, but mainly used DOS. Then I discovered UNIX, and did almost all of my work on a timeshare - in the early 90s!
Then Windows 95 came out and I actively hated it, but did think it was amazingly pretty - somehow this was the impetus for me to get a pc again, which I put Windows NT on. Which was profitable for freelance gigs in college. Soon after that, I dual booted it to Linux and spent most of my time in Slackware.
After that, I graduated and had enough money to buy a second rig, which I installed OS/2 warp on - which was good for side gigs. And I really liked. A lot. But my day job required that I have a Windows NT box to shell into the Solaris servers as we ran. Then I got a better class of employer and the next several let me run a Linux box to connect to our solaris (or Aix) servers.
Next my girlfriend at the time got a PowerBook G4 and installed OS X on it. It was obviously amazing. Windows XP came out, and it was once again so much worse than Windows NT - and crashed so much more - which was odd as it was based on Windows NT. (yes 98 was before this but it was really bad). Anyhow, right about here the Linux box I was running at home, died. And it was obvious that I was not going to buy an XP box, so I bought my first Mac.
And it’s been the same for the last 25 years - every time I look at a Windows box it’s horrible. I pretty much always have a Linux box headless somewhere in the house, and one rented in the cloud, and a Mac for interacting with the world.
And like the parent I actively dislike windows. And that’s interesting because I’ve liked most other operating systems I’ve used in my life, including MS-DOS. Modern windows is uniquely bad.
I use windows and absolutely hate the mac UI. Having the current window title bar always at the top of the screen doesn't make any sense when you have a very big monitor. It only made sense with the tiny monitors available when the mac UI was originally created.
Yeah, that is an annoyance for me too but for a different reason. I have set the menu bar to be only in the internal display (to avoid issues with my OLED external monitor) so when I have a window in the external monitor, I have to move the mouse to the internal monitor screen space if I want to open something that is in the app's title bar.
On the other hand, it is actually useful that there is mostly a specific place you find settings etc, as in windows/linux it tends to vary depending on the app where to find those (is there a bar on top of the window? Is there a button to expand a menu somewhere? Something else? Who knows).
Don't you realize that those with money are the ones who have the means to build a culture? How do you propose we compete with Jeffrey Epsteins who have a shit-ton of money to spend on pushing whatever narrative they want to? Just look around and see the "culture" we're in.
There are many Mastodon servers run by ordinary people simply because they want to. And before the shit-show the internet has become, there were many forums and IRC channels, absolutely free, and with 0 ads.
Very low traction on these. Let me know when there’s something that people actually use in tens or hundreds of millions and random people are just providing the infrastructure out of pocket and spending all their time on this without expectation.
We've come full circle to banning advertising. It seems like we have good reason to believe that people will create the infrastructure for the communities that they _want_ to exist and fund them. So just banning advertising will probably be fine. Worst case scenario, we gradually loosen the ban. The advertising hellscape will grow back immediately, nothing of value will be lost.
Moving the goalposts much? Of course there aren't any free services serving millions currently, how could they, when Facebook/X spends millions to make sure everyone stays on their platform? Which non tech savvy would want to move to a platform without all their friends? That's the gotcha with social networks, once you grow big enough, it is really hard for people to move off of it.
Still, funny how you ignored IRCs/forums that I mentioned. Those were used by MANY people, and could scale infinitely. You are literally arguing against something that has already happened.
> Still, funny how you ignored IRCs/forums that I mentioned. Those were used by MANY people, and could scale infinitely.
At its peak (late 1990s to early 2000s), IRC was estimated to have about 3–4 million concurrent users worldwide at any given moment, with tens of millions of total users over time.
Pales in comparison with the scale that’s needed today, given the number of people, variety of media, and bandwidth required.
Storage/compute/etc were orders of magnitude more expensive at the time, so the fact that it was 3-4 million is uh, pretty impressive? You could host a Matrix server for your 1,000 closest friends for basically no money.
You're absolutely right compute, network, and storage have continued to decrease in cost and accessibility.
The scale issue is enabling billions of consumers. It takes time and effort and skill.
It turns out that there are relatively skilled people who are willing to give their time and resources freely relative to billions of consumers in the market.
You know IRC isn't just one giant server serving every single user, right? Same for Mastodon. There were/are many different servers. Again, you are arguing against reality. IRCs/Forums have existed for decades, with hundreds of thousands of active users, with no problem whatsover. Scaling to billions is easy, since with more people using it, more people would be interested in hosting a server.
Part of the amount of bandwidth and computing power required today is specifically due to advertising and activities in the same cluster: tons of media files and javascript for ads and analytics and dark patterns and 'catchy' interfaces, all entirely unnecessary and providing no real value.
No I am not moving the goalposts, the alternative shouldn’t just exist it should actually do the job and by doing the job, I don’t mean that if people made the effort to use it, it can do the job. I mean people should be using it. Also, no people are not stupid and its not their fault for not using it.
You are completely ignoring the impact that having billions of dollars at your disposal to spend on keeping users addicted to your platform can have. There is no way a free platform can compete with X/Instagram/TikTok, even if such platform had a better product(which they do btw). Just look at Whatsapp/iMessage, both are terrible apps, there are MANY better options, with way more features, and somehow they are still the most used messaging apps in the Western.
Without agreeing (or disagreeing) with their larger point, dynamic types become more of liability as a project gets larger
Like "schemaless" database applications, there's always types/schema somewhere: the choice is if they'll be explicitly defined at the place of construction, or implicitly spread out across all the places data happens to flow in your application. And the more places there are, the more spread out they'll be.
Static typing is also really nice for game dev since proper unit tests are harder (but not impossible) compared to your average CRUD app.
The other side of the argument is that dynamic typing is great for prototyping and can allow for more compact code.
The discussion is exhausting because many people don't understand the difference between weak typing and dynamic typing. You basically never want weak typing but dynamic typing has legit uses. Yes JS is both weakly and dynamically typed and that sucks but Common Lisp shows you can have very strong typing and dynamic types.
Lots of very complex software has been writing in dynamically typed languages. The whole Erlang/Elixir world is dynamically typed though Elixir is getting gradual typing.
There is a good reason gradual typing is getting popular, you get the best of both world. You can prototype quickly and then add types and make everything more solid later.
(Which also why you want to always use a statically typed language in the corporate world because there is never a "later" and the bigger the team the more important it is to have the lang enforcing discipline. But not every programming is corporate.)
People that are dogmatic about static typing show their immaturity. The older I get the more I realize that there is no right or wrong way to program, everything it tradeoffs and "it depends".
> there's always types/schema somewhere: the choice is if they'll be explicitly defined at the place of construction, or implicitly spread out across all the places data happens to flow in your application.
> And the more places there are, the more spread out they'll be.
You can still have schema validation at the borders of the application(data in/out) without static typing.
I think there are many other factors that come into play when it comes to maintaniblity of large projects. I'd easily choose to maintain a large Elixir or Common Lisp codebase over a Java one, assuming they were all using the Best Practices™ of their respective languages.
There is research out there, and there is absolutely zero evidence that static typing catches more bugs than dynamic types. My experience is that immutability, functional programming, simplicity and testing pays a MUCH bigger role in maintainability than static typing.
Dynamic typing has trade-offs, and so does static typing, HUGE trade-offs by the way. But for some reason, no one seems to mention them... ever.
Silly me for falling for the bait after two one-word replies in a row.
If I need to specify this is about data flow inside your application when we're talking about typing, I don't want think we're having the same conversation.
Hopefully someone else will want to mud wrestle on this.
reply