Interconnectedness of the world today is economically justified, it does not have any morality in it. In the same vein, if we would have to listen to your anti-morality point of view, we should have kept the connections as before even if we contribute to the global warming, to the deaths of many vulnerable people contributed by the rising number of viruses that are spreaded at an accelerated rate, to the number of cyberattacks that have quadrupled. Similarly to economically accessible transit around the world and its complexity, we have the Internet which is clearly becoming more and more prone to breaches exploiting vulnerabilities (log4j literally proved that everything was open for exploitation). Today, while I'm watching a random Romanian TV channel, many psychopaths at a round table are leading you to believe that Covid's risk is self inflicted by people who don't work out & are overweight and that lockdowns are unjust, it is all people's fault, that there's nothing moral in lockdowns and wearing masks, which I strongly disagree with and it is also not supported by data.
Yes, they should check for any possible breaches. As any other responsbile company already does, like AWS for example which not only checks for breaches, but also scans public repositories like GitHub and GitLab for leaked credentials. A company should also warn a user from time to time that the respective needs to update his password, some companies are so careless that they don't even pay attention to this latter small detail. Or at least to warn an account holder that he still has an account with them.
> and that makes your faulty memory their problem
It is not only memory that is flawed in humans. Hence the protective measures I'm proposing.
> against known breaches
What about the unknown ones? How do you protect your user's account when under GDPR Dropbox is the controller of the data? By sending mails ocassionally to update the password, to adopt 2FA, by locking account due to suspicious activity or to purge it in the end if no further action is taken. It ends with the deletion of the user.
No, they are JavaScript, it is array based programming wrapped in a reactive functional-declarative approach. Simply array of objects cascading with state. {#await promise} is more cryptic than any useHook function implementation.
Same experience, I've started working with React when Hooks were introduced in a greenfield project. My last experience with JavaScript was jQuery and Angular 1. I was blown away by the functional-declarative approach of React Hooks, I can't believe that people haven't used it before.
The choice between OOP React and Angular boils down to this, as you said, people prefer the OOP nature as they come from Java, C#, some prefer even more the templating system of Angular as that reminds them of JSP, Thymeleaf and other systems that were used in enterprise systems in the past.
Though, the concept of React Hooks changes everything. Functional components coupled with JSX and styledcomponents give you superior composability and encapsulation, imho. When I'm programming in Angular, I notice the familiary, it's like I'm using Spring but on the frontend, while in principle I like the rule of least power, I can say that the declarative nature of React is game changing. Look at the ecosystems that are being developed now with Hooks, like Tanstack, react-hook-form, etc. People are literally creating their own SwiftUIs and Jetcomposers in JavaScript (TypeScript).
Yep, Kafka is probably the most popular one. I've heard that the team is looking forward to replace the remaining Scala code in the project with Java once pattern matching and co. land. Spark is another beast that was written in Scala. Many are reporting a high cost for compatibility. Nowadays, Scala community is all about Typelevel and ZIO, if you are not a category theory minded person, then you will have a hard time picking it up.
> Being written in a language that isn't well-suited to large projects and refactoring efforts doesn't help either.
I know that Borg was written in Java and Kubernetes in Go. Though the latter had a reputation in the beginning as a systems programming language, its purpose was actually to build large-scale cloud infrastructure projects with it and it proved formidably well suited for the task. It compiles fast, anyone can read it, good tooling and it is efficient for the layer on which it is meant to be deployed. Go, as Java is one of the most productive languages in use today, judging by the ecosystems they have spawned.
Globalism is inevitable, you cannot stop it. You should rather get used to it. The fact that you get anxious by ideas penetrating your culture means that globalisation works. It is like my Romanian grandfather telling me how bankers should have been punished in 2008. Which would have never and it will never happen because that's how the world works. The alternatives are far too costly and our global capitalism does not allow it. Get used to it, neighbor.
What is wrong with the EU handling of COVID crisis? We have vaccinated more people than the US and there was no major breakout since summer 2020. In constrast with the UK where restrictions have been draconic.
> but in the end that will mean more for your career than anything else, unfortunately.
I strongly disagree. In my organisation engineers have higher salaries than "people persons" like managers, product owners etc. Maybe it is something Eastern Europe (Romania) does better. In my country, people become managers when they don't know what to do in life, when they have not mastered any skill in 12 years of mandatory education + higher education. People who can't code at the end of the CS curriculum have three choices basically: HR, PMO or do a Master in a totally unrelated field to increase your employability. Do you really see yourself the "acting" leader, answering to phone calls all day like a secretary and asking people about the status of their tickets? I hope not. A "people person" is easily replaceable, a good engineer is not. When the financial crisis comes and the line is drawn, engineering skills remain. That is not to say that soft skills do not matter, quite the opposite, just don't make it a day job, you will become vulnerable.
Your comment reminded me of Soviet Union or Communist Romania. They thought the same way that brilliant people shouldn't focus on finance and that the state should produce things that are not "crap" in the view of some academic or party member. It failed badly, the only good thing that we inherited today is that we have many engineers in Eastern Europe and that's pretty much it.
I think there's a fallacy. It's like people that get into chess for the sake of becoming better at logic. Which is good for a while until it becomes a problem of pure memorization. Or people that spend their time playing poker in order to get better with probabilities and statistics instead of going through a textbook with pen & paper. Factorio is a very good game, I've enjoyed it for a while, but it's not a replacement to solving coding problems.
I'm not questioning the growth of China. I'm only interested in its sustainability and its ability to innovate, to bring a new Apple, Tesla (not an anti-Apple, or an anti-Tesla) in the world or to contribute to the knowledge body of a science like physics. I'm from Romania and I've lived under communist times sprinkled with some open-market policies in which Citroen, Renault and other companies were running factories in my country. Something similar to what happens in China, but minus 1 billion, 430 million human resource. Based on my experience (I've also lived in Beijing for 2 years), it feels like history is just repeating. Look at why communism in Romania and Soviet Union failed:
* Centralized governing system
* Production excess, we continued to produce even if we didn't have any buyers and the quality was pretty bad (today you have Wish or Aliexpress through which you can sell literally anything, even people from my family are ordering crazy stuff from China that has no use at all, so China has the upper hand, we just didn't have that technology back then)
* Lack of political diversity
* No indicators of survivability, China is yet to go through a major crisis (Black Swan) to see how it handles it, the pandemic is not a Black Swan
* Impedance mismatch between communism, atheism promoted by Marxism vs. Christianity that promotes individual thinking, Eatern cultures generally are more collectivistic, so again, China has the upper hand
* Socialist countries are ticking time bombs, they implode when you don't expect them to happen, usually the trigger is local. Nobody thought that Soviet Union would collapse out of nowhere, I still remember reading articles coming from socialists in German and American newspapers lauding the policies adoped by Soviets and how they will get ahead of them. On 15th December 1989 nobody in Romania would have thought that the next day a bloody revolution will start out of a small Hungarian minority in the city of Timisoara. Localism! Everything from China comes from the top level, filtered and censored, we may never know what happens locally and it will be a surprise for us when that happens.
* An educated population is hard to control, the only thing that communism does great is offering education for the masses and opportunities, the moment it will hit a certain threshold, people will just want more and everything will end violently. As Wikipedia puts it:
"The events that demolished the Iron Curtain started with peaceful opposition in Poland, and continued into Hungary, East Germany, Bulgaria, and Czechoslovakia. Romania became the only communist state in Europe to overthrow its government with violence." [1]
> Why is that? I think it says more about us in the west.
I can agree with you. Because of our experience, it is easy for us to swap China with "Western Communism" and think that it will have the same faith without taking other factors into consideration. The West has problems and the pandemic revealed them, blaming China for the Corona problems is stupid, we should blame our overlyoptimized, overlyindividualistic nature. When Italy was "burning" at the beginning of the pandemic, all European states were reluctant to aid and all the press in Europe was finger pointing them in a disgraced way, typically European. I remember states that I've believed to be "team-players" like Sweden notifying all other European memebers that they will do it their own way. The same happened with my country, they were so late to react to the advice of WHO and EU, so late that the local municipalities started to take the matter into their own hands they practically blocked the access to the cities.
Freedom does not translate into gun ownership. That's a very leftist/right-wing thing to say. Seems like people have been hardwired by the media to only think about America in terms of gun violence. When a Yakuza mobster terrorizes a small business in Kyoto, I wonder how a guaranteed medical insurance will help then. Don't forget that Japan is the country with the highest mob involvement in the legitimate economy. If the US gov would shake hands with the Irish/Italian mafia to keep the crime rate low, we would call it a feudal alliance but if Japanese government does systematic coverups, we just call them EFFICIENT.
Why would you need operator overloading in a low-level language? It's not like you are gonna write Jupyter notebooks with it. Zig is not meant to replace MATLAB, Python or Julia. I would use it instead to build the backbone of such a data science platform.
I really don't get this push to polyglot programming when 99% of the high performance libraries use C++. Even more, openAPI has DPC++, SPIR-V has SYCL, CUDA is even building a C++ standard library that is heterogeneous supporting both CPU and GPU, libcu++. Seriously now, how many people from JVM or CLR world actually need this level of high performance? How many actually push kernels to the GPU from these runtimes? I have yet to see a programming language that will replace C++ at what it does best. Maybe Zig because it is streamlined and easier to get into will be a true contender to C++ HPC but only time will tell.
In the ML, DL world or in the physical simulators, people just compose a task and throw it to a CPU/GPU/TPU or a cluster of these and let it run for a long time. I don't see how Julia will be different for this kind of tasks. I understand that in Julia you solve the 2-language problem and all the goodies that multiple dispatch brings but the Python ecosystem progressed a lot in the past 2 years, now you have Numba JIT, Jax JIT, PyTorch JIT, XLA JIT and many other proprietary JITs that are not open-sourced. Since JAX (as an example) is mostly numpy and Python, you can leverage your existing knowledge instead of having to learn a fundamentally new paradigm. I would say that Python has many "specialised" JIT engines and it seems to work great for the community. Don't get me wrong, Julia is interesting, I can't deny that but I expect a huge adoption period for it. It can find its niche as C++ did for extremely high performance computing or Scala for Big Data (though Java is starting to replace many use cases). If you ask me now, I would say that the world converges around Java, C++ and Python when it comes to data, the old trio and it will remain this way for at least another decade.
There is no such thing as Anglo-Saxon continuation. Somehow, with the invention of nation states, we picked this this concept of cherry-picking our history even if most of the times doesn't make any sense. So, you will have England which pushed the Anglo-Saxon agenda, Scandinavian countries with Viking (more like Norse, since Viking was a border security job) stuff, Romanians think they are the continuation of the Roman rule, without taking into consideration the many people that settled or migrated through the country like Dacians, Goths, Huns, Germanics, Pecenegs, Slavs, Avars, Mongols, Turks, Romani, etc. I would stay away from these, since mostly they are used by right-wingers to push xenophobic agendas. Even Greeks still believe they are the same people as the Ancient Greeks. The problem nowadays is that with popular media and games, we think about these ancient people like some form of Gods and we create an unrealistic image about what they actually were, we even replace the actual history with an alternative one. Most of them were uneducated, poor, malnourished and their only hope was to survive the next day. Less than 1% of the population of that period created the meaningful stuff that we enjoy today when reading about Roman, Greek, Norse, Celtic, etc cultures. There is no reason to attach yourself to a specific "history" when the world is wealthy in knowledge and culture as it is today.
Please, use the library, not games or popular entertainment (documentaries, your avearage YouTube history video, etc).