incepted

Ugh... sourceforge.net?

No, thanks.

On top of the weather, which is a big deal to a lot of people, the problem is exactly in what you said: there are two huge tech companies. And that's it.

Basically, if you move to Seattle, you are pretty much restricted to working for Microsoft or Amazon and that's it. Period. Nothing else.

It's a huge career limiting move, make sure you're okay with it.

> Pardon my ignorance but I thought by now everyone agreed that Multiple inheritance was the root of all evil.

Hardly.

How it's implemented makes the difference. I'd say the general consensus is that C++' version of it is probably the worst (although to be fair, as much as I dislike C++, its implementation of MI has never really bothered me much in practice).

Modern languages support multiple inheritance of implementations with traits, which have a few additional restrictions compared to classes. These restrictions address some of the flaws that MI can have.

The bottom line is that you will rarely need MI and when you do, its flaws will probably not be much of a hindrance, so overall, it's a pretty overblown problem.

Java (or better, Kotlin) coupled with DropWizard (or Jetty or Tomcat).

Things get dated in engineering too.

The writing has been on the wall for Rails for a while now, we're just seeing an increasingly large number of people publicly moving on from it.

Interesting take but I disagree with one point:

> This style of designing abstractions is often quite foreign in programming in the large, and other schools of thought (see Gang of Four) actively encourage weaving cryptic metaphors and anthropomorphising code as a means to convey structure.

The GoF didn't try to anthropomorphize, all they wanted to do is put names on things. Sometimes, these names have some meaning (e.g. Factory pattern) and other times, they have none (e.g. the Flyweight pattern).

The important concept that the GoF book introduced was to name things. What word was used for these names matters little.

In other words, similar to what the author of this piece is trying to achieve (and he does so pretty convincingly).

Here is a penny so you can by some more ram. You can keep the change.

I have a feeling that by the time this happens, a lot of the Python developers will have moved to Go or some other language.

It's always interesting to see the only people who ever talk about JavaFX are either Oracle employees or people who have a financial interest in JavaFX, such as the author of this piece whose business is based on JavaFX.

This is the usual privacy hysteria knee-jerk reaction: "Watch out, the big companies are going to get data on you!".

And people are going to react exactly like they've done before: if the service is worth it, they'll be happy to trade a few bits of privacy about themselves in exchange for the benefits.

Also, I'm not sure the author of this piece understands what encryption is about since he laments that most people don't search with https on. Er... what? If you want Google to search something on your behalf, they have to be able to read the words you type. Encrypting these words so Google can't read them would be comically useless.

Predicting that a company will fail without giving a date is not foreshadowing, it's stating the obvious.

Interesting but since they are designing a revised syntax, I wish they had got rid of Ocaml's semi colon. These stand out in 2016.

The whole article is about Gerber, it should have been called "Why Gerber can't innovate".

As plenty others have already pointed out, the tech industry is currently being led by very big companies that are frighteningly effective at innovating.

Disappointing content from the Harvard Business Review.