I've seen work environments that are chaotic, and people are expected to deliver things that they can't deliver without navigating and taming the chaos to do their bidding.
If course that's stressful. You can't expect individuals to tame the organization.
I think some parts of IT have deteriorated into anarchy with tyrannic leadership.
Sure, you can have anarchy. But then don't expect any particular timelines.
You can hire armies of people. But then don't expect one corner of the org to be able to deliver something that involves talking to everyone.
That's true. But that's only really a concert if you're building an SPA. If you're not, having multiple pages is generally faster than running some js framework to reload parts of the page. Plus that you get the benefit of every state combination having it's own URL. You don't need to write any custom state reconstruction code.
This was the original design of REST as applied to the web. It was explicitly designed in such a way that it was forbidden to reload parts of the page. This makes it so that every state has it's own URL and you therefore can link to every state. Deep linking if you wish, for all of the web.
My tip for this is Node.js and some stream processing lib like Highland. You can get ridiculous IO parallelism with a very little code and a nice API.
Python just scales terribly, no matter if you use multi-process or not. Java can get pretty good perf, but you'll need some libs or quite a bit of code to get nonblocking IO sending working well, or you're going to eat huge amounts of resources for moderate returns.
Node really excels at this use case. You can saturate the lines pretty easily.
I think they mentioned CPU intensive work, which I'm taking to imply that it's more CPU bound than I/O bound. So unless you're suggesting they use Node's web workers implementation for parallelism, the default single threaded async concurrency model probably won't serve them well.
Python is technically multithreaded, but the GIL means only one thread can execute interpreter code at a time. If you use libraries written in C/C++, the library code can run in multiple threads simultaneously if they release the GIL.
I vaguely recall Node used to run multiple threads under the hood for disk I/O, but it might use kqueue/epoll these days.
Ha, reminds me of Uno Loop, a late legendary bossa nova artist in Estonia. Really good guitar player, too. (Many non-natives have asked this, so: yes, this is a real name. Uno Loop. Not bad luck for a musician, I guess.)
I disagree with the problem statement; that the framework is trying to solve a meta-problem.
The problem with frameworks is instead that they assume that they're in control. They're the program, you're just writing a plugin.
This makes it unnecessarily hard to use them in all but the most straight-forward use cases. And they're usually also trying to do too much; config for starting, special way of testing, incompatible with other frameworks and libs etc.
Contrary to that, a library does one thing and one thing well. Like a Unix tool. Much easier to use, better coverage, and usually easy to combine. And you can plug them in anywhere.
Frameworks are overreaching, but not in the way that the article paints it.
Yes this is possibly why the author renamed the post. There certainly has been a problem of over-abstraction in the industry, with some of the most guilty parties being the frameworks (e.g. the infamous AbstractSingletonProxyFactoryBean from the Spring framework).
Maybe. But that specific overabstraction is in the implementation of the framework. It's trying to proxy all the method calls to objects to perform logic around them. It is true that Spring wants the developer to configure auxiliary logic that gets applied around the written code, instead of actually calling that logic. So perhaps that's what the author was getting at.
I think of frameworks as essentially higher order functions, e.g. map/reduce, where one provides the function parameters. That many frameworks seem much more complicated than this is certainly not a good thing.
There are still good frameworks that don't take unnecessary control. I think the most common bad ones have some ulterior lock-in motive, usually some company trying to extend its influence, and you have to look out for that.
I'm interested to hear their business plan, given that there's already established ones like https://elastx.se/en/, and they're not running terribly well, although they have quite a good product IMO.
My main gripe about the Wikipedia mobile site is that text search doesn't work on the collapsed sections, and there's no way to expand all sections at once. The simplest thing left to do is the request/navigate to the desktop site and use your browser's find text feature then.
They've been pulling shady stuff for ages. Ever heard of the false flag attacks in relation to Cuba? The bay of pigs false flag bombings, and the proposed https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods ? Terrible stuff.
What percent of Americans do you think know about these things? If you set the over/under at 5%, I'd happily take the under. I'd probably be inclined to take the under at 2% as well. That's what's really changing. The government being horrific and abusive is nothing new, but having any remotely relevant chunk of people aware of it, is. And many of those events you mentioned remained completely classified for decades. Operation Northwoods was not made fully available until 2001, about 40 years after it happened.
Now everybody is getting to see this happen in real time. Fabricating evidence to invade Iraq, a completely dystopic domestic surveillance system revealed by a whistle blower, what happens when societies faces even the slightest threat (from a pandemic in this case), the complete collapse of media integrity, completely routine abuse of spying powers, politicization of every single body of the government, and much more. This is what makes now, so much different than the past. "We", as in way more than 5%, are all seeing this play out in real time - and it's shaping our worldviews.
I think it's over 5%, but not much more. There's also the issue of learning about the government abusing power can be intimidating. You learn they do lots of extrajudicial murder, do you speak out and be the next target? We need mass movement of people to call it out and resist for them to change, and I don't see that happening soon enough
.. not to mention the impressive apparatus that was applied to make people think that the Cuban missile crisis started with Soviet missiles showing up in Cuba ..
I'll just quote the second paragraph of the Wikipedia article on it:
"In 1961, the US government put Jupiter nuclear missiles in Italy and Turkey. It had also trained a paramilitary force of Cuban exiles, which the CIA led in an attempt to invade Cuba and overthrow the Cuban government. Starting in November of that year, the US government engaged in a campaign of terrorism and sabotage in Cuba, referred to as the Cuban Project, which continued throughout the first half of the 1960s."
I'd recommend The Jakarta Method for some insight into the legitimacy of the concerns of regime change.
Could those missiles be (late) reactions to Soviet activities in the areas, such as keeping their most combat-ready forces just across the Ljubljana Gap and the very recent territorial claims for Eastern Anatolia?
Mate, Soviets outnumbered USA+UK in Europe by a factor of 2 as of late 1945 (see Operation Unthinkable) and it only got worse from there. In 1949 there were about 3.5 million Soviet soldiers spread across East Germany, Poland, Hungary, Czechia etc. The entire US army went below 1 million by 1947, with a very small fraction deployed in Europe.
The West was consistently on defensive/deterrence against the USSR throughout the Cold War, there's no point denying that.
The USSR ceded their claim to parts of Turkey some 8 years before the missiles were deployed there, yet it kept the 13 rifle, mountain and mechanized divisions in Armenia and Azerbaijan, under the so called Transcaucasian Military District. Similarly the so called Southern Group of Forces was stationed in Hungary just across the Ljubljana Gap from Italy.
It is a bulletproof fact that throughout the Cold War the USSR had an offensive stance in Europe, and conventional NATO forces there only stood some chance in defensive. Eventually the insane military production, sometimes amounting to 25% GDP, including ludicrous quantities of tanks, IFVs and SPGs to support the supposed rush to the English Channel, brought the colossus down.
As a daily Excel power user, I'd prefer to just know that there is one expected behaviour, and not to be bothered by a context window. The fact that ctrl-z just changes context to the other workbook is enough notification in itself, and I can just ctrl-y otherwise.
No, because I get the point about context very, very quickly. I can’t imagine anything worse than being asked every time when I know exactly what’s going to happen.
If course that's stressful. You can't expect individuals to tame the organization.
I think some parts of IT have deteriorated into anarchy with tyrannic leadership.
Sure, you can have anarchy. But then don't expect any particular timelines.
You can hire armies of people. But then don't expect one corner of the org to be able to deliver something that involves talking to everyone.
You can't have the cake and eat it too.