hurril

An exact match is of course a derivative, let's call it the identity derivative. So in:

let new_code = f previous_work

where f could be identity. But it could be other transformations such as: rename_all_the_things, move_items_around, object_oriented_to_functional, and what not. Probably a combination. But here's the kicker: all permutations of these functions are all derivatives.

And we don't have to be naive here, thinking that I'm talking about using refactoring tools on an actual code base because I want to hide the fact that I want to steel some piece of code.

I'm talking about the fact that I've seen so much code and this has in fact taught me basically everything I know. I have trained myself on a stream of works. Just like an AI. The difference is in scale, not in nature.

That is my point right there.

While I understand the concepts of derivatives and tainted code, this AI/human-dichotomy is not as good as that reasoning requires it to be. Every statement of code I commit is in fact a derivative of work that potentially had an incompatible license.

My Apple Mac OSX taskbar (sic) is to the left on my screen. Auto-hidden. Just like I keep my taskbar on my Windows-box.

I find this very interesting:

> [...], I can confidently say that async and its interactions with memory are the hard part. (Edit: Making async code properly clean up after itself is also the hard part, unless you use a better async runtime than tokio.)

I would love to read more about this, are there any specific areas or things I might search for?

How about: don't be in EU anymore?

Can I as an EU citizen please opt out of this nonsens?

Let's not conflate side effects and effects.

It's that for a team of a given size, we can only collectively produce so much. So as long as we're always picking tickets of a priority that stakeholders and we deem of the highest priority, then we're doing the right things.

This necessarily means that the backlog probably grows.

You and I seem to completely agree on this. I really dislike a backlog of bad conscious with things we "mustn't forget". My reasoning is more (akin to yours): if it's a necessary and actually requested or useful feature, then we'll rediscover it. (This doesn't apply to bugs!)

I am a freelance programmer. I don't wish to out such information here.

Indeed, we seem to understand each other. A very well put post of you!

I've come to appreciate these difference in later efforts to learn functional programming as a way of giving myself more tools. But for the longest time, it was very difficult for me to "get the boxes right" for what things go where. What is a module, an object, a function, a method, etc, coming from the object oriented universe.

I still have the urge to "create objects" when I conceptualise solutions and _imho_ this isn't always a good path.

These days OO exists within my horizon of tools for solving tasks. Before, it was the water, if you will. Some problems have a want for objects, others don't really.

We don't disagree at all by the looks of it. I was objecting (lol!) to the description of OO as code and data together. _Together_ doesn't carry the necessary weight here because a struct and a module of functions in the same file is also code and data together.

It's that the receiver of those messages have an identity that defines it.

Inheritance and polymorphim is of course central to OO, but it's not defining characteristics imho because inheritance is "module arithmetic" and polymorphism has plenty of flavours.

(I am in no way trying to have a go at OO either.)

I think this description of what OO is, is flawed and makes people talk past each other:

> • What is OO programming? – a programming paradigm that uses "objects" – data structures consisting of datafields and methods together with their interactions – to design applications and computer programs. (Wikipedia)

It isn't that they are together, it's that the core entity of the language used to express solutions centers around identity over state or values. As in: two objects are different even when the fields are all equal, and also: two objects can be the same even with different field values.

If you are going to object to this, I ask that you first contemplate whether or not you have programmed in any other way first, because as a fish, reasoning about what water is can be difficult.

This is correct, a conductor does not need this. But you are not the conductor in this analogy, you are a player of one or more instruments.

You're making a strawman here, based on a very much false dichotomy. The things you list here are all very important.

But something you learn from writing a larger piece of software yourself is that you get to appreciate complexity and "bulk" (for lack of a better term) that you yourself created. You get to ask yourself questions like:

Is all this code needed? (Why is it 400 lines to do X?!) Why did this get so involved/ complicated?! How do I progress (eat the elefant)? Can I (teach myself to) make small iterative units of progress every day, for instance?

These kinds of katas are very very useful for a 5-7 year beginner (which I use as a label of respect - the longer we can remain beginners, the longer we learn with an open attitude!)

-Who would pay more for what?-

Re-read.

That isn't why in the slightest. It isn't about the number of alternatives, it's entirely to do with the cost of producing electricity for the different alternatives.

When there's plenty of wind, then wind power is obviously cheap. Sometimes running into the negative, as in: we get paid to use it.

This causes _everyone_ to lose money.

When there's no wind in large areas, industry power draw (which is most of it by a wide margin), means that something else has to produce the missing energy. If too little electrical energy is produced, the entire grid breaks down, so there's a scuttle to either disconnect sub-nets or add more production.

The production that is added is more expensive. This sets the market price.

Only to an extent. But sure: let's hope for better storage technology. But this also immediately eats away at cycle efficiency.

There's a reason nuclear remains, despite cost and apparent risks. It's because it is still less bad than the alternatives.

It is very hard, yes. A lot of things in the regulations probably have to change because the technology works in reality, as opposed to wind and solar, which only works intermittently. We see news like these when there's a lot of wind power, but nothing when we use coal, oil and gas in its stead. Why is that? Ask yourself that question.

Opting for even more wind implies the need for backup coal power. Also: a lot of wind economics is pure bs in the sense that they calculate lifetimes that are completely bogus as well as the fact that they, themselves, are not recyclable in the slightest. This is a bubbly/ boomy economy.

We, where I live, regularly pay over 26 Cents. Just last week, every day cost us north of 15 EUR a day on the electric bill, and it's not even _that_ cold yet. Because of a lack of nuclear power that used to be there.

It won't work. What needs to happen for that to work is extreme progress in accumulation technology. It's a pipe dream.

You cannot run any industry that requires power or energy on: oh, I wonder what the weather is like tomorrow. And if we want to replace coal and other really bad parts of reality, we have to come up with alternatives that work and actually exist.

Solar and wind now is not that. Doing more of this will lead to even greater non-linear effects on prices, which will bankrupt normal citizen. And industry won't want to be here. They need stability and _lots_ of energy.

Nuclear is the least bad idea and electricity prices have nothing to do with Putin's war. But sure, you are right that nuclear is very expensive but it doesn't have to be that way; plus: there are a lot of countries changing their minds here at this point.

I am not against renewables, I am for keeping our senses.

An example of something that just isn't sensible: Fueling my electric car with energy derived from coal, stored in batteries basically built by satan. (Read about the mines.) For decades, we stopped developing nuclear power because of confused environmental groups. (And against: I am not a coal thumper and definitely a green person!)

Electricity prices have basically increased five-fold at least, here. And it gets worse every years. When the wind stops, we run coal, oil and gas plants here that are extremely expensive and also destroy the environment. Instead of nuclear that we use to have.

Akschully, these are not mutually exclusive.

When your energy mix is biased towards wind and solar, the market price for energy fluctuates with the weather, basically. So when there's a lot of wind in an area, then energy is cheap (and the wind farms lose money.) When there's no wind, energy becomes expensive and the wind farms lose money.

This means that base power generation from nuclear also loses money when there's a lot of wind, and that coal power is needed when there isn't any [wind.] So we all pay more _and_ destroy the environment more.

When there's no wind in Germany, they buy from the energy market, driving up prices all the way up to what Coal and Oil power generation costs (which is expensive and terrible), since that is the competition. And since everyone pays market prices, we all suffer from Germany's lack of nuclear. (And ours.)

In a sense: Germany has socialised their energy production.

If I was conspiratorical, I would say that Russia played Germany like a fiddle in this regard. Cancel your nuclear so that you have to buy gas for energy production. And here we are.

Thank you Sweden and Germany.

Exporting coal power. Lovely.

We pay that and more because both Germany and Sweden decided that nuclear power is a bad idea. You would pay even more if we weren't selling, which in a sense would be more fair because then you would bear the consequences of your own actions.

Downvote me all you want, dear germans.

And then it stops blowing so they buy all our Swedish electricity, making us all pay for the german environment. Except the germans.

I would love for you to disagree, but for that to happen, you have to address the points of my arguments, which none of you have.

The things you in particular mention goes towards my point, not against it. We are probably mostly in agreement when it comes to those.

I know that: - it is easy to make a tiny framework - you can do that with both Java and JavaScript - that the translation layers really don't add much effectively - that you can program both languages without any library even

I know all this. If you think that you have to tell me this or that I am wrong because of this, then you have missed the train.

You can substitute Java and JavaScript there for ARM assembler. Do you get that?

But if you as the proverbial CTO were to suggest going with assembler, people would (drum roll) use my arguments against you. Assembler needs a lot of Something Else to go on top of it and with it to make it generally useful.

This is not to say that there's anything wrong with it in and of itself. But if you want to address cross-cutting concerns in a project, you are shit out of luck. You would invent a... drum roll... high level programming language to go with it. You would also likely want to have some sort of state management to go with that. And error handling, configuration management, various abstractions such that those become ergonomic to use.

Please tell me you get the point now, because so far... you really haven't. I understand your points, but they are not directed at my point and we do not necessarily disagree about anything.

Sure. But since the point has to do with how Java compares to alternatives when it comes to needing frameworks in the first place, this doesn't add to your point. It detracts from it.

They aren't part of a technical argument.

The root parent of this discussion pertains to the value of frameworks. In this context, I am making the claim that Java and Java programmers need frameworks and that hating them is basically misdirected. You are, in effect, blaming the plastic hammer for not working without first turning it into a metallic one.

You can agree with this or not but please direct your answers to the claim I am making and please be honest.

I'm frankly shocked that this is a controversial take and I can honestly say that this has made me understand why Java with Spring Boot as well as JavaScript is so prevalent still. You like it the way it is and probably always will!

I mean: judging by how most of you respond, you've probably also missed to point though so I can never be quite sure.