Personally I wouldn't make one part of the name linked to the underlying development language, we make software for the users, and the source is often not part of something users have to deal with. Just as is sounds good in my opinion.
And in the end, it feels good and fresh. Just like any other (meaningful) skill, decent social skills put forth significant effects on one's awareness of their local surroundings, and with good social skills, invaluable experiences. I've struggled with it for the best half of my life, and later ignored the need to take action and improve. I moved on to finding out the subtle beauty of just pulling up a conversation with a completely new person, of course our perspectives and opinions might differ, and that's where I see the beauty and without it, the world wouldn't have been so dynamic so I think.
Such a transparent and clear post, therefore first, Thank you! Based on my experience with propitiatory IoT devices and protocols, vendors seem to be kind of unwary when it comes to potential security vulnerabilities and exploits in their protocol or firmware of the devices. As I understand, it's now all on us consumers to deliberately report insights to regulatory authorities and respective lawyers and hope everything comes together.
I'm not a mathematician but I enjoy maths both as an anchor to an objective reality and as an art of expression (or rather compression of axiomatic ideas into tight and elegant
equations). A shift in the framework of thinking can radically change viewpoints we have adopted so far (if it's not the otherwise) however often to come off as controversial.
It reminds me of my old days in high-school when I was intrigued by unconventional ways of doing maths, I often had the habit of mixing many different domains into one derivation (which often led to people interpreting it as nonsense). I realize that even if I were "right", whether it is or not is dependent on a subjective, mutual, and shared convention.
> They feel strongly drawn to C's virtues, often explicitly in contrast to other languages
Can someone point me to which set of virtues you are talking about here? Simplicity? Value semantics and imperatives, little abstractions over what the computer OS is actually doing? Manual control over almost everything being done? Are such "virtues" safe and dignifying under an universal context of computer programming? Isn't it a bit dangerous to let such Virtues take over in modern programming dealing with heavy abstraction layers because of the yield in complexity of modern hardware?
Last time I checked on blink, it couldn't run dynamic executables (or ELFs that run with the dynamic interpreter), and would result in a segfault. How has it improved since then?
> it stores data in memory, and async starts writing data to disk in small data chunks called deltas, later these chunks are deleted and replaced with the whole graph snapshot
Thanks, that fairly answers my question of recoverability of in-memory graphs.
If a large graph is needed to be read multiple times, sure memory bandwidth will result in the most performance possible under the context of this workload like interacting with PageRank (and going further with optimization techniques on memory allocation and management, will boost the performance even further).
So to my understanding (and a novice one at that), the graph should be stored on disk first, upon initializing the objects will have to be an one-time copy to volatile memory but I question, memory regions are more likely to yield faults and get corrupt and thus graph stored in-memory is also completely flushed? (unless the results are being saved to disk in-between specific intervals of time?) Does that make any sense?
Automatic memory management is indeed the first thing one needs to look for writing performance critical software, and that's a first in my check-list. But
> in-memory storage of databases
Doesn't that sound a bit expensive to have large capacity memory? Although the expense of R/W IO is far cheaper for in-memory analysis. Is such trade-off worth it?
Rather than "evil", I would dub it as a little too much confidence on statistical models running on blackbox computers without checking for edge cases of false inference(which could always be plausible).
This to the very extent, is still very valuable for me to a personal level. However I can understand why people would divert away from it, people have grown apathy for comprehensive and deep heap of information and want "quick" low quality "fixes" for their problems. Part of the reason why "googling" is so popular and the index of information is represented in terms of SEO while still questionable on the quality of information and reliability yielded by SEs like google.