cdcfa78156ae5

> coming to the conclusion that slowing development time was worthy if the resulting product was performant

What I don't get is where these claims of faster development time come from. Toolkits like Qt make it way faster and easier to build UIs than trying to use HTML/CSS garbage.

Snap-on, Knipex, Milwaukee, Bosch

> usenet was actually usable

When did it stop? comp.lang.* is still pretty active.

Yes. Erlang is built around distributed message sending and serialization. Python does not have any such things; even some libraries like Celery punt on it by having you configure different messaging mechanisms ("backends" like RabbitMQ, Redis, etc.) and different serialization mechanisms (because built-in pickle sucks for different uses in different ways). Node.js does not come with distributed message sending and serialization either.

> There are a lot of python distributed systems built around in memory stores, like pycos or dask, or built around existing distributed systems like Akka, Casandra, even Redis.

Cassandra and Redis just mean that you have a database-backed application. How do you schedule Python jobs? Either you build your own scheduler that pulls things out of the database, or you use an existing scheduler. I once worked on a Python system that scheduled tasks using Celery, used Redis for some synchronization flags, and Cassandra for the shared store (also for the main database). Building a custom scheduler for that system would have been a waste of time.

> If the code is written in a distributed fashion from the start then it can be designed so it's one python/node/R process per core.

That's a really glib dismissal of how hard the problem is. Python and node have pretty terrible support for building distributed systems. With Python, in practice most systems end up based on Celery, with huge long-running tasks. This configuration basically boils down to using Celery, and whatever queueing system it is running on, as a mainframe-style job control system.

The "shell scripts / xargs -P" mentioned by chubot is a better solution that is much easier to write, more efficient, requires no configuration, and has far fewer failure modes. That is because Unix shell scripting is really a job control language for running Unix processes in parallel and setting up I/O redirection between them.

There is no such software, because what you are asking for is for the software to "one-click install" read your mind. Dropbox cannot cover customized use cases, and it does not accomplish the same goal. My use of the commands mentioned cannot be replicated by Dropbox. The facts that Dropbox does not provide adequate privacy, and is proprietary software, also prevent it from accomplishing certain goals (namely that I want my data to remain private, and that I would like to avoid using proprietary software).

> Of course there's no name.

That's because this is an Internet post, not a car that can be used to maim and kill people.

> Cryptography isn't perfect; someone could always guess your private key.

Cryptography is a branch of mathematics, and cryptographic systems can be formally proved to have certain properties, such as being unable to derive the private key from the content of the encrypted message. That the private key can be guessed is a trivial observation, and a bad argument for dismissing formal proofs. ASLR is a hack on a hack that does not tell you anything about the formal properties of the system.

By your definition, wearing a wig and sunglasses to get away with shoplifting is a "clever exploit." Refusing to put license plates on your car so you cannot be identified for breaking the law is antisocial criminal activity.