> It's not a computer science language, which emphasizes theory.

"Modern" type theory has been around since the 70s but aparently that's still too academic for Go.

But perhaps Canadian Aboriginal Syllabics are still the more pragmatic approach!

https://www.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/5penft/parallelizing_...

Careful, HN is also full of blowhards. "Blockchain" and "NoSQL" are dead giveaways.

Not true.

Since the addition of SQL/PSM (1996 IIRC) it has become a computationally complete language (procedural like many of the others) with variables and loops and what have you.

That's only true tautologically--i.e., if you decide to constrain "its purpose" to the set of things SQL does well. If you want to do something perfectly reasonable--like programmatically building queries to access data of arbitrary (read "unknown at compile time") schema, you'll find it's quite hard to do this, at least if you care about performance at all. Largely because SQL doesn't compose well.

Optimization requires knowing the schema, and query usage patterns, and data stats - which competent RDBMS engines use to great effect already.

Sounds like you're looking for a magic silver bullet - there's no free lunch in our field though.

Lastly, the comment I was replying to can be paraphrased as "well is SQL is so great why aren't RDBMS' built using SQL, huh?". Which is a ridiculous question since SQL isn't the right tool for that job - its very name tells you that.

If you want to continue arguing against strawmen do it with someone else.

> And btw, this has already happened in some areas. Most developers I know don't code in SQL: they use an ORM provided by their language runtime or a support library. That's essentially the same thing.

This works well enough until your ORM shits the bed and you're forced to figure out why your SQL database is "slow".

SQL isn't slow, ORMs are just terrible when you hit an edge-case or when pretend there isn't a relational model behind your opaque materialised objects.

I used to be one of those developers you mentioned, but I'm not anymore after years of debugging "SQL performance issues" (hint: it was the ORM), and actually taking the time to learn the language and take advantage of specific RDBMS features. My preference has shifted to just use a lightweight library to materialise objects (like Dapper), and write the queries myself.

Oh I couldn’t agree more. I didn’t mean it as an endorsement of ORMs, but it does demonstrate that SQL isn’t entrenched as the sole user interface to RDBMS.

You've just described a Stargate from the SG1 universe :)

Gates disintegrate objects that pass their event horizon, transmit the energy and "pattern" of the object to the exit gate which rebuilds them.

Essentially everyone in that universe that has stepped through a Stargate has "died" and it's their copies currently walking around.

Existing financial systems process many orders of magnitude more transactions than Bitcon does. There's no acceptable excuse for its current consumption VS the throughput it provides.

Energy consumption goes up with mining difficulty but its throughput stays the same.

This manta keepa being repeated by the bitcoin crowd as if it were a fledgling technology, when its already 10 years old.

Is mass adoption just around the corner, do you reckon?

Honestly it's really unlikely that bitcoin will be the place where energy efficient cryptocurrency will be debuted.

There's lots of people working on more energy efficient, yet still secure cryptocurrencies, but IMO we won't see truly energy efficient cryptocurrencies until we shift the trust away from the central chain and into individual actors.

Theoretically you should be able to establish a trust coefficient for an action given the signature of the actor & the gossip on the network about their outstanding debts, their current balance & their non-transferable value.

You'd still need to pay the cost for obtaining the information about the actor and a method for verifying that you haven't been subjected to a sybill attack w.r.t. that information, but that amount of data transfer/computation should be orders of magnitude lower than the current PoW technique that bitcoin uses.

There's no way that the rough system I am talking about would be adopted by bitcoin, and I'm not gonna be working on it, I haven't seen a project that looks similar so I'm guessing it will still be quite some time.

If I was going to go with a cryptocurrency that is energy efficient and currently exists I'd probably take a serious look at https://www.nanode.co/

Will you be rewriting Cloudflare in rust?

Cloudflare is already using Rust in a bunch of places; no need to re-write.

My comment was tongue in cheek:)

Wish you the best of luck!

But maybe you weren't also a C++ developer, because if you were you'd not made such a ridiculous comparison.

Yeah I found this argument weird - the Catholic church has actively covered up and enabled paedophiles in their ranks for decades.

Odd place for OP to draw the line...

It doesn't seem so odd if your goal is to meaningfully represent a large segment of the population.

And it only wasn't invaded because the entire country was (and is) a standing army, and Germany would have to pay dearly for every mile they tried to take.

IIRC they even shot down german war planes that entered their airspace and suffered no retaliation.

So yeah, they do have a knack for maintaining their neutrality.