> Time Warner Cable is not part of Time Warner, so they're not consolidating service providers. AT&T just wants some content production companies.
That might be what they say, but I think it's to compete with Google. While Google may have given up on further fiber rollout after the existing ones, Google still plans to continue to expand and compete with AT&T and other broadband providers but as a wireless provider. Google Fi is just the start. When they bought up Motorola they ended making a better phone themselves (the Pixel). They're using Sprint and T-Mobile for Google Fi now, but plan to become a better wireless data provider.
Of course, it remains to be seen whether these plans will work.
I should have only quoted "AT&T just wants some content production companies" because the rest seems to have confused you. I wasn't disputing ownership.
I think what they were trying to say is that AT&T is buying up Time Warner Cable/Spectrum to own more of the broadband and cellular service markets, such that they can better compete with Google, now offering broadband and Google Fi data service over Sprint and T-Mobile's cellular networks.
* It is assumed that there was no single reason for the "collapse of civilization" (in Aegean, Eastern Mediterrean, Eygpt, and Near East) between ~1200-1000 BC. At the time, it seems there were droughts, famines, earthquakes, invaders, and rebellions; havoc was caused, international trade routes cut, and many cities were destroyed.
* Parallels drawn at end to modern society with exception of the migration and/or invasion of "sea people" (actually people from several areas).
* Eric then at end says that he's not in a position to provide advice for what we should do, but seems to suggest that when history runs its course, it is likely that good things come from the destruction, citing the Alphabet and monotheism as coming after the 1200-1000 BC collapse (end Bronze Age) and fresh growth coming after a large forest fire.
I think the forest fire at the end could have been left out. While I like the optimism he was trying to relay, I think that some could take it is a reason for actively trying to light the powder keg by causing further destabilization in order to bring about a renewal.
Also, the problem with comparing the dark ages then to what would happen today is that they weren't that bad:
Trade was not relied on as much as it is now for food, material to build shelter, fuel for transportation, etc.
Many countries today could not become self-sufficient without a great deal of death and disease if trade routes were cut off.
And, our civilization is more at risk because we rely on electronics and electricity. If a large portion of the electronic equipment were rendered unusable by a well-coordinated set of strong EMP's/nukes going off (unlikely), a very large coronal mass ejection (more likely), or cyberattack on the electrical grid (most likely), that would disable our water, food production, hospitals, and heating/cooling. Few have the resources they need to survive or even physical books to teach themselves anything that would be useful (plants in their area that are safe to eat, how to build weapons and hunt, how to find fresh water, remedies for disease using local plants). Many have not made social connections with neighbors.
Note: EMP/CME cannot be mitigated by storing an extra phone or computer in a Faraday cage, even if you were to have a few bikes to generate electricity for it. What are you going to do with it other than use a text editor to store recipes for roasted squirrel and dandelion stew?
If any of those things happen, you'll need clean water. In addition to storing some water, you'll need a renewable supply. Though distillation is the best technique, some other options are discussed here:
Aside from reading how to make a filter yourself with mosses, carbon, and stones, this is one that's recommended: Sawyer Products SP191 Point Zero Two Bucket Purifier Assembly Kit with Faucet Adapter
> SpaceX has no prospect of being able to afford the very large investment — at least $10 billion — required to develop a launch vehicle of this scale.
Adjusted for inflation, US gov't spent the equivalent of $65 billion/yr in the 1960's to get a man to the moon:
To give it some context, here are the Mars failures:
Soviet Union/Russia: 1M No.1, 1M No.2, 2MV-4 No.1, 2MV-3 No.1, 2M No.521, 2M No.522, Kosmos 419 (3MS No.170), Mars 96 (M1 No.520), Mars 1 (2MV-4 No.2), Zond 2 (3MV-4A No.2), Mars 2 lander (SA 4M No.171), Prop-M Rover rover (SA 4M No.172), Mars 4 (3MS No.52S), Mars 5 (3MS No.53S), Mars 6 (3MP No.50P), Mars 7 (3MP No.51P), Fobos 1 (1F No.101), Fobos-Grunt
US: Mariner 3, Mariner 8, Mars Observer, Mars Climate Orbiter, Mars Polar Lander, Deep Space 2
China: Yinghuo-1
UK/Europe: Beagle 2, Schiaparelli EDM lander
Japan: Nozomi (PLANET-B)
Also: Soviet Mars 3 lander (SA 4M No.172) landed, so counted as partial success, but contact lost 14.5 seconds later. And Soviet Fobos 2 (1F No.102) orbited successfully then lost communications during landing, so a partial success.
However, as they say, "In terms of performance, both frameworks are exceptionally fast and there isn’t enough data from real world use cases to make a verdict."
And Angular 2 Hello World is easier than they make it seem in the comparison:
> starts out with an app that uses ES2015 JavaScript, NPM with 18 dependencies, 4 files, and over 3,000 words to explain it all - just to say Hello World.
It's just the following with a lot of documentation that could be simplified:
Also, it makes the case that Angular2 is "enterprise" because many use TypeScript with it. But, TypeScript is optional in both Vue and Angular2, so people could just as easily make the argument that Vue is "enterprise" because it supports TypeScript.
Finally, it's true that Google uses/develops Angular2, so that's some significant backing. If you want to see who's using Vue:
This is a misleading title and conclusion. The study showed a huge benefit of TDD over Waterfall, and it is only when compared to ITL that it was found to not be better.
But moreover, I think it's important to understand why Beck pushed for TDD.
TDD is like saying "I'm going to floss before I brush every time, no matter what."
But, when people don't do TDD they typically aren't all saying "I'm going to brush and floss afterwards every time, no matter what."
Instead, most say "I'll floss regularly at some point, but I don't have time now, and it takes too much effort. I'll floss here and there periodically, maybe before my monthly meeting or big date night."
Another reason Beck pushed for TDD was method and solution complexity reduction which results in lower time and cost required for maintenance because code is simpler to read and understand. Again, with ITL, you're still writing tests for everything, so you'll see those benefits. However, if you fail to write some or most tests, some developers will write overengineered solutions to things and have overly long difficult to follow methods that will make maintenance suck more resources.
If you want to go beyond this study, though, Beck, Fowler, and DHH had a critical discussion about TDD in 2014 that's worth checking out:
The extra complicated architectural refactors I've seen done in the name of 'test-ability' have been eyebrow raising. TDD isn't a guarantee in inducing engineers to KISS. You can still make overengineered crap tests first / TDD or not
Not only that... when you test the efficacy of medical interventions the gold standard to strive for[1] is not whether the new intervention is better than placebo, it's whether it's better than $CURRENT_BEST_KNOWN_INTERVENTION. I suggest we should be aiming for a similar standard in testing software engineering methodology.
I think it would be very hard to argue that Waterfall ~= $CURRENT_BEST_KNOWN_METHODOLOGY.
[1] Of course, this isn't usually what happens in practice when pharmaceutical companies are doing their own testing, but it's what should happen if you actually care about efficacy and not just PR/sales.
Been coding Java for close to 20 years. Can anyone show me what's being done in the language to bring on newcomers, or did that ship sail 10-15 years ago?
Some ideas that would bring people back:
* Wildly new, terse, and clear syntax and a great library of built-in tools that are briefly and intuitively named.
* Easily write and design interfaces that generate both/either back-end or matching integrated front-end code which is off in its own directory and can easily be used by existing JavaScript and HTML.
* Similarly be able to generate the JavaScript front-end code that use those JS client libraries with easily writable/pluggable generators so that it can generate Angular 1.x, 2, ReactJS, Bootstrap, etc. in "best-practice" ways that can be updated frequently as the community changes.
* Simultaneously provide the option to serve very similar pages using straight HTML, degrading even to the point that a text only browser could use the site easily.
* Easily define responsiveness of pages.
* Support multiple 3D, 4D, etc. interfaces with customizable inputs to be forward-compatible without overdoing complexity (i.e. it's really pluggable).
* Similarly support generation of almost any kind of service integration, with easy pluggable authN/R.
* Easily scalable.
* Relational, noSQL, versioning DB (noms) support.
* Make fun books for kids and a site where they can share what they've written, write games, build things, etc.
* Make it integrate with every browser, even some older versions, operating systems.
* Make it compile low-level vs. byte code so it's fast as shit.
> great library of built-in tools that are briefly and intuitively named.
I dunno, guess this depends on what you need. The Java class library has so much in it, but I guess it's not overly intuitive due to the age of a lot of the packages. Personally, I don't think I'd have a hard time getting my .Net-loving colleagues accustomed to everything as is.
Java EE is another matter entirely, I gave up on it after the Java EE 8 clusterfuck that's going on and have just decided to use Spring for everything.
> Easily write and design interfaces that generate both/either back-end or matching integrated front-end code which is off in its own directory and can easily be used by existing JavaScript and HTML.
What are you looking for here? Automagic API's? spring-data-rest says hello. I still find it's better to write my own, but if you need something for a quick prototype there you go.
> Easily scalable.
How are you wanting to scale? Where is your bottleneck? This isn't on the language to solve, it's how you design your application. I can throw up 2,000 instances of an application, but whether the database behind it can handle 100K/tx/sec is another story entirely.
> Relational, noSQL, versioning DB (noms) support.
We've had JDBC, JPA, jOOQ, QueryDSL, etc, forever for the relational story. There's plenty of support out there for various NoSQL databases (Spring even has spring-data-cassandra which I am looking at using right now for an ES/CQRS design).
> Make it integrate with every browser, even some older versions, operating systems.
Why? Java in the browser is dead. If you want to write client-side stuff just use JavaFX and package using WebStart or an installer that bundles your JRE and dependencies.
> Make it compile low-level vs. byte code so it's fast as shit.
Java is already "fast as shit". The warmup time for HotSpot and initializing the JVM is probably the big complaint everyone has, but unless you are writing small command line tools it is a complete non-issue.
With that said, Java 9 will support limited AOT compilation of modules to reduce the time to get basic compiled versions of your classes - HotSpot will still profile the compiled modules, and if finds it is required it will deoptimize, re-profile through bytecode interpretation and reoptimize - just like it does with normal .class files (which are still required to run).
Thanks for the bullets. This is a good list but some of the points like "Easily scalable" and "DB support" are not cheaply available in any runtime and require careful attention to detail as well as domain-specific thinking. IMHO, the JVM already does a lot of heavy-lifting in this regard.
It comes down to this: are those developing the language thinking about how to add features just to try to hone and hold on to the enterprise developers that still use it, or are they thinking about what would make it more fun, productive, and practical?
Java's going to be around a long time. Those that stick with it will be fine. COBOL programmers made a lot of money in 1999, and some people still use Fortran.
But, Java's original big mantra was "write once, run anywhere." Such idealism then. Cool things have been done in the past few years, but can't we do more?
I work for Pivotal so I'm biased. But I'd take a long look at Sprint Boot in terms of "fun , productive , practical" Java: https://projects.spring.io/spring-boot/
In particular:
- curated and tested open source library dependencies to the point that you can generate a single JAR for anything you might want to build on the server: http://start.spring.io/
- Annotations and APIs to make REST service development a breeze
- Cloud connectors to make it easy to run your app on Heroku, Kubernetes, Mesos or Cloud Foundry, or to leverage NetflixOSS components, or to build stream processing applications (Spring cloud stream / data flow)
It is being downloaded and used at a very high rate (a couple million a month).
Spring Boot is awesome, thank you guys for your massive contribution. All of my co-workers are .Net guys and keep trying to say that Java is dead now that .Net Core is out, but I still haven't found a server-side solution better than Spring yet :)
Cool, but much less useful than the full suite of Spring projects (which is why I love Spring in the first place, it's basically batteries included but everything remains modular so I can pick and choose what I want). .Net Core is a great stepping stone, but between deployment headaches (I can just run yum install java-1.8.0-openjdk to get a JVM and run a spring-boot app, .Net Core forces me to bundle the runtime right now) and the lack of a cohesive integrated suite of components keeps my heart with Spring (even if I'm forced to use .Net at work more often than not).
>Make it compile low-level vs. byte code so it's fast as shit.
AOT compilation is not automatically faster than JIT compilation. Java already is fast as shit. If you're worried about that first 100 milliseconds, works is being done on AOT compilation.
AOT isn't for the first 100ms, it's to avoid the 10K invocations required on a method for HotSpot to determine a hot code path and optimize the method - that can take a lot longer than 100ms and why when you see the JVM used in the financial sector, for example, they go through a lot of effort to "warm" the JVM.
Of course without runtime profiling the AOT built code may not be optimized for the hot path correctly, HotSpot will still deoptimize in this case and begin profiling again - so it's not going to be suitable for everything until they allow you to capture profiling details and feed it into the AOT compiler.
Most of that seems overly specific and wouldn't be appropriate for the core of a general purpose language. There's a whole world of software outside of web applications. Leave that stuff to separate libraries and frameworks.
> When Max picked up the phone, you should have exclaimed, “Hey, Max! It’s a pleasure to chat. I would love to hear what you’re up to.” And you should have said it genuinely.
Should have, yes, if you really felt that way. And if you can feel that way geniunely, that's the best.
However, I don't think it's right to lie like that if you don't really feel that way. You can go a long way being nice without lying.
But, on don't just give up and say, "I'm just not nice." That's a problem, and if you feel that way all the time, you should go see or talk to someone: a family member, a friend, a GP doctor, a psychiatrist, or anyone that will listen and help you figure out the real problem. You might need more sleep. You might need medicine. You might need a chiropractic adjustment. You might need to vent. You might need to just spend time with another person. You might need to be alone in nature.
That might be what they say, but I think it's to compete with Google. While Google may have given up on further fiber rollout after the existing ones, Google still plans to continue to expand and compete with AT&T and other broadband providers but as a wireless provider. Google Fi is just the start. When they bought up Motorola they ended making a better phone themselves (the Pixel). They're using Sprint and T-Mobile for Google Fi now, but plan to become a better wireless data provider.
Of course, it remains to be seen whether these plans will work.