DarkNova6

Nihilism is the path to death and destruction. Thinking this will makes you powerless and cedes control with those who have the most resources.

It's easy to take yourself out of this equation, but it only makes everything worse. The trick is that they make you think that it couldn't get worse. But this is always false.

Because?

I totally get that. Java is my favorite language for exactly that reason. They are a deliberate "late mover language" and adopt what other languages have proven right.

But looking at how adamant Go used to be on the whole "No Generics" stance and the path and the troubles they are having... it all seemes so preventable?

Step by step, Go is now learning the hard lessons every other language has learned over the last 20 years. The fact that despite their best efforts, their propositions look like everone else is a surprisingly refreshing affirmation of status quo.

Indeed. At this point you’d need to bring the size of the string into the type system (C++ Templates we meet again!) but then you look at a solution worse than the problem…

The Java way was always to let library designers decide how a type is used. I personally think this is the sensible one.

I think it really highlights how important it was to have atomicity and integrity by default because even here people will handwave away any such concerns as if they don’t exist.

Your comment makes no sense to me, but I must grant that there is a lot of bad reporting about Valhalla and I’ve been following the mailing lists for well over 7 years now.

Nothing, absolutely nothing about the design is a compromise that would detract from the project if it was for any other language.

You could judge them for bringing “complexity to an easy topic” but it really is far from that and the idea of a value type being a distinct dichotomy from an object is just a convenient tradition.

The push for immutability and value-ness has been going on for a long time and the motivation of the project was to bring performance benefits that align with semantic statements about the underlying data type. Which is of course a more nuanced take than “go value, go faster”.

Fortunately, there are plenty of mature alternatives to Spring these days.

What I love the most is the sheer amount of thought and philosophy put into Valhalla. It transcends the binary understanding of object vs value and actually defines 4 distinct buckets:

1: Classical Object

2: Object without identity

3: Atomic Value

4: Classical Value (Tearable)

Each bucket has clearly defined performance characteristics and semantic constraints. So depending on the nature of your data, you can always get some benefit from values even if you couldn't go all the way. This is a work of art.

From what I gathered the core problem is flattenability. It is backed by a dynamic array and you would need real templating to remove the indirection.

You can deliberately opt out of it though and for such a mainstream language such as Java, this just might be the sane choice.

Java has the mantra of "Integrity by default" which means you can tear into non-integral value type with a flag.

This is the strength of Valhalla. Instead of a binary object/value choice you have different levels of semantic guarantees that will give you better performance characteristics, depending on what your type will be able to give up.

You can have tearability for a complex/quaternion number without problem. But if you have something such as a Range-type class, that gets more problematic because cross-field constraints can be violated.

It's about the semantic guarantees because you don't want to introduce a parallel programming bug just because you added a field to a type. Tearability is opt in and if you are serious about performance you will make the correct choice.

You can opt out of atomicity and make your type tearable, achiving the same performance as on any other platform.

This is the correct default as the vast majority of developers using value types will not be aware of tearability, being taught that "value types are safe for parallel programming" without knowing nuances.

With only having read the headline (as it is customary), I dare say: Aggregation without distribution always means nothing.

Unless CPU instructions become widespread that allow to process 128 bits in one step, then yes. Java will have the same limitations as any other language. Other languages simply don't make this explicit.

Out of all factors this certainly isn't it. If anything, more projects could learn from the way Valhalla was handled.

It started out as a highly invasive, highly disruptive and highly experimental branch that eventually turned into a beautiful specification that put semantics and performance payoff first and syntax seconds.

How integral are integers?

I see. Thanks for the info!

Wasn’t Flux purchased by Meta?

Well done, sir. This post has evoked the expected responses from the other comments.

You could argue the Romans tried to by debasing their coins with inferior minerals to mint more of them at lower costs.

This is irrelevant because of 2 factors:

1. Past policies don't dictate current policies. And current policies are wildly different from policies of 5 years ago, which are again different of policies of 20 years ago and even before that.

2. Amount of immigrants doesn't say anything about standard of living. And we all know immigration (and even illegal immigration) was promoted by all parties because this meant cheaper labor costs. And often also, exploitable labor.

And finaly... it's not a surprised that the third largest country in the world, who was considered an immigrant nations for well over 2 centuries has the most immigrants?

I have no idea why you are getting downvoted. I don't know the specifics, but just comparing the ingredients of foods between the US and the EU really speaks for itself. Just compare something seemingly innocuous like Ketchup ffs.

Looking at the state of infrastructure, public transportation or the quality of food doesn't exactly make a compelling case for the US. Public schooling isn't something that wants me want to move either. I really enjoy walkable cities and I am absolutely not a car person.

Sure, none of these are a problem if you earn a shitton of money... but where doesn't this apply?

Look, I'm not saying the US is necessarily a bad place to live in but I really enjoy live in a high wellfare societies and will happily trade away a good chunk of my salary for higher quality of living.

Not from the population itself but the changes to policy and hostility at the border. This includes restricted access even to visas, but also handing over your unlocked phone if you are a foreign national. Nothing of that sort is done when you make a visit for China. In fact, I could go there for 2 weeks without the need for a visa.

For over a year it has actually been the official recommendation to bring a burner phone to the US if you area a European citizen. To me personally, this feels like an invasion of privacy that makes me feel deeply resentful.

To be fair, the UK isn’t high on my list either and I’ve lived in Finland and Austria before and I know people from china and their experiences with infrastructure and healthcare.

I am mostly comparing these places to all first world countries, rather than just the anglosphere.

Salary alone is meaningless if you don't factor in purchase-power-parity and other quality of living aspects. E.g. a lot of people are happy to move to Denmark, and accept a paycut because they are leading with their social facilities and family support. Salary alone will not conjure good infrastructure

As somebody living outside the US, I would find moving to the states highly undesirable even if it wasn't for the hostility towards non-US citizens.

To me, it would mean a significant reduction in quality of live and I am low-key scared of all the ingredients and additives in food that are pretty much banned everywhere else. Not to mention all risks regarding healthcare.