8,069 karma · joined May 28, 2009
I definitely support the Seattle-area cities working together, though.
I would definitely still advocate using the right tool for the job, though. If the vast majority of your application would be best written in C++ or Rust (something without managed memory) I would just go ahead and do that.
A lot of people, however, have cross-layer applications where a substantial amount of the code has strict performance requirements, but much or most of the rest of the code has looser requirements.
[1] http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2015-July/087832.ht...
And yes, we call TFVC TFS all the time :)
I'm sure you already know this, but for anyone new to design in concurrency backends, not only does async/await (CPS) have the potential to really trounce goroutine-style concurrency in modern systems, but if you have a really smart compiler and some OS support, it can really fly. See Joe Duffy's blog post about asynchrony in Midori for more info[1].
[1] http://joeduffyblog.com/2015/11/19/asynchronous-everything/
Python is interpreted in what was its most popular form, but may not be now, CPython.
This is using the definition of a JIT as an execution engine which takes in some form of bytecode and, at runtime, emits architecture-specific assembly code to a page, marks that page executable, and changes the IP to that page.
If CPython executes in that manner then I'm mistaken about CPython's execution engine and would also consider CPython to be a JIT.
While I can attest that HN has always had a significant amount of startup stuff, that was nowhere near the entirety of the site.
I remember when the front page was filled entirely with Erlang articles, for example, and I'm damn sure no more than a tiny fraction of HN was using or considering Erlang for production at that time.
It would be strange in English, to my eyes, to refer to a newspaper whose name was "The World" as theworld.
The dotnet-cli stuff is super new so a lot of the tooling is incompatible right now. As things start to settle out more in the next few weeks a plan to write a series of blog posts about how things work, general development approaches, and where you can expect to hit rough edges.
Thanks for the feedback, though! We're definitely a bit new to this style of development.
In fact, the package I used for the compiler binaries contains the csc + vbc compilers, so it's literally just shoveling some command line arguments down the pipe.
It's definitely on my to-do list. :)
I also have high hopes for NeoVim.
Can I help with getting it running?
I'm not on the ASP.NET team, but may be able to provide some general guidance.
I would prefer compat with the Atom Plugin API so I could just use that.
1) Perf for a product should be marked against some shipping benchmark and intermediate regressions don't matter as long as we come below the benchmark at ship time.
2) Perf improvements should be "locked in" and not regressed, unless strenuously justified.
I think the parent is of group (2), where it doesn't necessarily matter that it's better than the benchmark of "against other compilers" but only that Go regressed from their earlier perf metrics for what they believe to be inadequate justification.
I think both groups have valid points. I think (2) is especially good at preventing "perf creep" wherein you continually justify small perf regressions for new features, explaining it away that competitors are doing the same. Eventually, you get to the point where everyone's just slow, but they have no impetus to improve because they're still better than the competition.
I think the problem pointed out by the original article is that they don't like this because it tends to produce oligopolies (i.e., "chains"). Unfortunately, I think that's just because non-colluding oligopolies are efficient.
So the market is "working," some just don't like the outcome.
The people to look at are, say, Peter Oppenheimer, former CFO of Apple (picked at random). I'm sure his net worth is in the hundreds of millions and he has a few very nice houses -- but what's the likelihood that a significant portion of his wealth is reintroduced into the economy? I really know nothing about him, so maybe I'm being unfair and he spends lavishly on yachts and mansions, or is an angel investor in 100s of startups, but I think the prototypical Fortune 500 C-level is probably someone who lives very well, but not lavishly and not up to their very generous means.
I should also note I'm excluding passive investment in mutual or hedge funds for the sake of argument, but I'm not sure whether they produce sufficient results to count as "reintroducing" money into the market.