leapis

I keep a large production Java codebase and its deployments up-to-date. Short of upstreaming fixes to every major dependency, the only feasible way to continue upgrading JDK/JVM versions has often been to carry explicit exceptions to new defaults.

JPMS is a good example: --add-opens still remains valuable today for important infra like Hadoop, Spark, and Netty. If other, even more core projects (e.g. Arrow) hadn't modernized, the exceptions would be even more prolific.

If libraries so heavily depended upon like Mockito are unable to offer a viable alternative in response to JEP 451, my reaction would be to re-enable dynamic agent attachment rather than re-architect many years of test suites. I can't speak for others, but if this reaction holds broadly it would seem to defeat the point of by-default changes.

The tool is for drawing "technical analysis indicators", one of the most convoluted ways to ascribe meaning to a random process and something that will only ever be true in the self-fulfilling sense. I don't think it's a surprise that some users are willing to blindly trust the tool, when all users of it are blindly trusting concepts that are built on sand.

Although I'm sure the author is burnt out from the experience now, I'd be interested in hearing how their next side project venture goes- is the experience more enjoyable when you're dealing with a user base that self-selects differently? Or do all users suck equally, just in different ways?

- scalar value

- feature toggle

- URI/enum option/human readable display text

Having float/long/boolean is trivial to validate in the config language itself, and if they're useful and simple enough isn't it nice to be able to validate your config as early as possible?

If you run a bunch of different microservices with distinct allocation profiles, all with high allocation pressure and performance constraints, and you've accomplished this w/ the help of a very fine-tuned CMS setup, migrating that over to G1/ZGC is non-trivial

Their small class size and heavy new-grad hiring also means that they're usually more flexible with recruiting and some would probably welcome a new pipeline for talented new grads like this.

I’m just as surprised to see the number be this high. I can’t help but wonder if this might be due to survivorship bias: crossovers are, after all, self-selecting. Perhaps not all engineers would say the same, if forced to swap roles.

Regardless, I’m excited to hear more from these crossovers. As a (soon-to-be) recent graduate, I think there can tend to be a great difference in perception between CS students and Engineering students, particularly at institutions without rigorous CS programs. Many tend to view CS students in the same way that some CS students view bootcamp students- people motivated by an “easy path to success”. I’ve found this opinion is rarely held of engineering students, given the reputation of engineering programs. I think it’s very useful to profile the motivators, mindsets, and general attitudes between the disciplines, if only to see that perhaps the difference isn’t as large as one might assume.