tdbgamer

I guess the upside is that you end up with a "compiler" that checks the invariants of your project and that domain rather than strict type safety. I love static typing, but I did try Elixir w/ Phoenix recently and was impressed that they were able to implement compile time checks like verifying that all redirects are valid routes, etc. Depending on what you're building, having a few small domain specific checks like that could be more valuable than strict type safety.

Improving performance isn't the only way you can make something "better". A system could be architected in a fragile or rigid way that makes extending it or adding new features extremely difficult without a rewrite.

I can't tell you how many times I've seen people "make it work" and create a mess that has to be rewritten later with much greater difficulty than if even the slightest amount of forethought had been given before hand.

While I agree with you that the JVM is great, I think most people that don't like it really just hate Oracle. It's not really a technical argument as much as it is philosophical. I don't really care either way, but I can see why people would mistrust Oracle knowing their history.

If you just hate the JVM, Clojure was designed in such a way that it could be hosted on many VMs which is nice. As others have pointed out, it can run on BEAM VM or even V8 with Clojurescript I believe.

This isn't just a design principle for .NET libraries, it's a SOLID design principle. All classes should be inextensible unless they are explicitly designed to be extended.

Yeah so if there are any vulnerabilities in his software, he just gave them all they need to exploit them...

This article seems like a great argument for using open source encryption software. This guy handed over his source code to the NSA without a warrant or anything? So any idiot that steals your laptop can just call him up and exploit his software to get to your files. Great.

Uhhh did he say it wasn't Sony's fault? His point was cross-play isn't the worst part, but the way Sony locks your account in. Don't see how that exonerates Sony.

Did you look into Google App Engine, Heroku, etc.? Those were pretty seamless managed experiences for me, of course you pay for the convenience though.

A tool doesn't need to fix _all_ problems to be useful. Yes, Docker doesn't cover differences in Linux kernel versions but it will take care of basically every other difference. Now the search space has been narrowed to Kernel/FS issues. Sounds great to me.

My impression is that people use Rust for correctness, security, and speed over ease of use. Although I do think once you get over the initial learning curve (which is admittedly large) it mostly makes sense.

To be clear, cyclic references are just as much an issue in GCed languages. In Python I had to use weakref lib to ensure cyclically referenced objects are still GCed. Rust is the same in that aspect, you use the Rc builtin type and create a weakref for one of them.

There is tons of C software out there that depends on libc that is never going to be rewritten in Rust. Also think about interpreted languages like Python, Ruby, etc. I imagine they all depend on libc. The only real way for Redox to gain adoption is through cross platform compatibility.

He mentioned some bad C experiences he had for a whole 7 sentences and that's your take away from the article?

You're totally missing the point dude. The point is that C doesn't protect developers from some of the most basic mistakes and offers very little tooling compared to modern languages. It turns out that maintaining huge software projects in C is actually really hard.