B. What about Scala? Would you say Scala is a "good fit" for people leaving Java because it's also built on top of the JVM? Or would it be a "bad fit" because the idioms and functional-nature of Scala are vastly different than Java? Or how about Kotlin?
I'm not thinking about "successor" in terms of "Java-specific" design patterns. I'm thinking successor in terms of - can Rust, with concurrency as a first-class-citizen and C-like perf with a safer programming model, replace Java for many of the "higher-level" applications that would've typically been written in Java?
For this precise reason, I've stopped buying things like baby food, baby toiletries, skin lotion, etc. from Amazon. I now purchase direct from the respective online store, or sites like walmart.com/target.com
Furthermore, this kind of stuff always makes me wonder if/when other genus will eventually evolve into "intelligent" beings (with "intelligent" being loosely defined).
The Homo genus evolved around ~2-3 million years ago; homo sapiens came about ~250K years ago. What's not to say that 2 to 3 million years from now, there'll be some other intelligent species from other genus branches? It always tickles my brain to think about this.
Anyone use the Eisenhower Matrix? A few really productive people I know seem to use it to great effect. Was wondering if anyone here has any tips with their experiences.
Props to Business Insider for writing this piece. I like to call them the "TMZ of Business News" - but once in a while they do very good reporting/pieces like this.
Of course it's hard to say if they completely, 100% invented anything from scratch. But they sure did "pioneer" a lot of unique practices that other software companies were not following at the time.
A specific example - the practice of keeping the entire codebase at the company under a single "source" repo. Pre-Google - it would've been considered outrageous to have the entire codebase of a sophisticated software company keep their entire software contents under a single repo. But Google did it, and other companies have followed suit successfully (as Google DNA has leaked to other companies).
Yes, of course keeping code in a single repo is not a "new invention". Linux is a single repo; many smaller companies have only a single repo because their only product is a single web app. Google keeps nearly 100% of their entire codebase in a single repo - and that was definitely a novel approach at the time.
> Mostly just stuff any competent company would/should be doing. it's google though, so they act like it's super awesome.
Yes, you're absolutely correct. But here's the thing - it was actually Google that pioneered many of this. Many of the big/competent companies that are following these practices are because of Google's "DNA" leaking into those companies (via former employees bringing along the best practices learned at Google, etc.)
This is also one of the reasons why Japan the Country has historically supported Judo more so than Karate (support via the Japanese government to promote it internationally, to the Olympics, etc).
Most linguists have historically categorized the Japonic languages and the Korean language as isolates. But, even though the technical elements between the two languages may bear no relationship with each other, the phonetic similarities between the two languages are pretty interesting. Also, at times, the grammatical features and structures between Japanese and Korean are more similar to each other than Japanese is to Chinese or Korean is to Chinese (e.g. Japanese and Korean are SOV word order [1] languages whereas Chinese is an SVO word order [2] language).
Of course, there's debate as to whether these similarities between the Japanese and Korean languages are a result of language convergence or divergence. But considering how close the two countries are (historically and geographically), it's probably a mix of both.
>>I think the article you linked actually gives ammunition to my claim that as time passes and memories fade with them, reunification is becoming less popular.
Yes, that article is stating that the trend amongst younger Koreans is moving away from reunification, but that's actually been an established fact for the past couple years now. If you read the article carefully, the trend was newsworthy at the time because reunification used to be a nearly unanimous sentiment in Korea, whereas now it is merely a majority sentiment.
I wasn't refuting your statement about the trend amongst the younger generation. I was refuting your generalization that the entire younger generation doesn't want reunification. It is much more complex than that, and there is still a sizable number of younger Koreans that still do want reunification. Nationalism in Korean culture is strong and Korean nationalism usually entails a reunification aspect of it.
It is also true that the primary concerns voiced by the opposition groups to reunification is economical, and they have been very vocal about it in recent years. But being vocal doesn't mean that it is representative of an entire demographic (e.g. squeaky wheel gets the grease).
>>So, I what I was pointing to was the fact that while a lot of us in the west seem to think reunification is the end goal, a significant number of Koreans, the actual people who we are discussing, do not favor it.
There is a disconnect between what the Western media portrays to its Western audience about Korean reunification and the actions and goals of the Western governments. Yes, the average US citizen might assume that the US wants Korean reunification, but the State Department and the many other various US foreign policy groups can have very different goals and strategies. First and foremost, the US will always care most about stability in the region - if maintaining the status quo means stability (i.e stability without reunification), then so be it. Furthermore, the US's current priority in Korea is denuclearization of the peninsula. Denuclearization is only tangentially related with reunification, and the strategies for denuclearization do not necessarily require reunification.[1]
>>It's ironic that in SK itself, people were much more interested in their pop culture, their daily lives
It isn't ironic at all, if you look at the history. The cycle of escalation/de-escalation by North Korea is so obvious now that most South Koreans don't even bat an eye with each provocation. Once in a while, an unfortunate event happens where there are some casualties, but most South Koreans know and believe that it won't escalate any further because an all out war would be disastrous to both sides. If you do a quick news search of North Korean provocations, there is a similar pattern since the mid-90s after Kim Jong-Il came in to power. Here's a headline [2] from 1999 that sounds like it could also be from 2002 or 2004 or 2009 or today.
I quote Dr. Jim Walsh, "I think we're just going to see more of the same, and we've been in this cycle a long time now, where we have provocation, followed by resolutions and naval exercises, military drills, and around and around it goes."[3]
It's been like this for over 20 years. The reason why it makes the news every time is because this cycle is not sustainable and will collapse one day. We just don't know when.
Actually, if you're really curious about the North Korean situation, Dr. Jim Walsh is an excellent person to start with. He's an American scholar with very good insights about the region (as well as foreign policy security, etc.)
Also, if you really want your mind blown, check out this photographer's project.[4] Yes, a lot of the craziness you hear about North Korea is true, and there is a lot of propaganda and suffering. But it's not all doom and gloom. I believe that once we stop looking at North Korea as the "other side" and start looking at them as people, we can start effectively engaging them.
(Or I guess you could write Scala in a non-functional, Java-y way, but that would defeat the purpose of using Scala...).