What does "given a pass" mean? I'm sure we'll hear what went wrong, and what they're changing to prevent it, before they launch again, just as with the failed landings. And of course we don't know what the failure rate is yet - my point was that "cheap" will make a higher failure rate acceptable for a lot of payloads. Of course I'd hope that as their process matures they'd continue improving both cost and reliability, but realistically it will take hundreds of launches to have a chance of both "good" and "cheap".
If they get even 10 re-uses, It will be remarkable, and allow much cheaper prices to orbit. I don't know what SpaceX expects in the next decade, but I don't expect them to reach their "!0%" pricing or a 1% failure rate that quickly: process refinement takes serious time. They don't need to to become a new, appealing alternative for launch.
Maybe I don't understand your point? What's being "rationalized" here? Or are you unwilling to participate in honest discussion here? I rather suspect you're just trolling.
You seem to be saying that it's unfair that/.er's don't hold SpaceX to the same standards of NASA? Of course not, that was never the goal, never the point, and no reasonable person ever expected that. SpaceX is cheap - a goal of 10% of NASA's launch costs. There will of course be trade-offs. That's as expected, and it's still a good thing.
Those private space insurance premiums should be skyrocketing....
I'm guessing/. will be a lot more forgiving than if this were a NASA failure.
The higher failure rate of SpaceX is expected. Setting aside Musk's marketing machine, it's understood that the medium-term goal here is to offer a higher-risk alternative (LEO prices below):
1. Western launch, traditional way: $4000-8000/pound (larger launches cheaper/pound). Low failure rate.
Long-term, SpaceX could achieve the same low failure rates through process refinement, but it's silly to expect that in the next decade.
Look, if your choices are $5000/pound with a 1% failure chance, or $1000/pound with a 5% failure rate, which do you pick? The rational answer depends entirely on the price to replace the payload, as two launches with a 5% failure rate have a very low chance both will fail. If your payload is "fuel" or "supplies" or something else cheaper than $5000/pound to replace, the added risk is completely the way to go.
I went to a shitty underfunded public school in a major city, located in a poor neighborhood and only black people live there (magnet schools: because rich people object to "bussing"). I lived in a variety of poor neighborhoods during and after my college years (admittedly Houston doesn't have the problems with escape-proof ghettos that the Democrat-only cities do). The main problem keeping people there, where I lived, really was either "attitude and culture" or "spending money on someone else".
Don't get me wrong: attitude and culture are no small thing! The strongest prison bars are the ones in our minds. But if you want to actually fix the problem, instead of keeping the problem around on purpose to serve your political goal, then you must understand the fix has to be cultural. I was stuck there myself for a few years due to my own attitude.
Everyone I talked to (and you do spend time talking to your neighbors when there fuck-all else you can afford to do) fell into one of these 3 groups:
1. Hardworking recent immigrants, legal or otherwise, who were already making enough to live somewhere better, but were sending most of their money back home (these are the best neighbors, BTW). They were here because the opportunities were good, and were anything but trapped. I'm sure their kids are doing great here.
2. A hardworking woman who wouldn't still be in this shitty neighborhood except for some layabout relative, always male, she was unwilling to force to work or throw out on the street. (I always suspected I only saw the ones who hadn't done that yet, but either way the problem wasn't lack of opportunity).
3. The majority: people who were convinced that working a regular, full-time job was some sort of scam. They were just too smart to fall for that scam, you see, to be tricked into working long hour for shit pay. They knew that wasn't the right answer, and any day know their next scam would work and they'd be rich. I was definitely trapped there by this, for years.
There's nothing in entertainment that glorifies, or even explains, that working long hours for shit pay is what the start of the path upwards looks like. That living with roomates in a ghetto apartment longer than you have to, spending less than you can even when that sucks bad, is how you make the space to change to a better job. That working a job that sucks so bad that you sit in the parking lot in a daze sometimes unable to walk inside and start the workday is just a temporary step on the path. None of that is explained, but it's normal when you start from the bottom. My immigrant neighbors understood it - I wish they'd have been able to explain it to me at the time.
Software development is more open to non-traditional backgrounds than most fields. I've participated in a couple hundred interviews and phone screens while working with a variety of the big names in my career, and no one ever cared about anything but "can you code, are you self-motivated, and are you an asshole". The opportunity is there, if you have the talent and the training, but its ultimately on you to make the changes to get the training and go after the opportunity.
The norm for big software companies seems to be: you have some number of open reqs for your team, and you're eager to fill them (both to get the work done, and because the might vanish). So you work your pipeline as best you can, interview anyone who passes a phone screen, and hire anyone who passes the interview. At most places I've worked, we end making an offer to about 1 in 20 people we phone screen (about 1 in 3 who we bring in); where I am now we make an offer to about 1 in 5 we bring in, and they don't always accept of course, so that's maybe 50 people who look good enough to phone screen to hire 1. You're much more likely to have too few qualified candidates than too many. Normally, if you end up with an extra guy you'd like to make an offer to, another team will be delighted to take him.
None of my games that came on floppies are still playable. About half the games I have bought on CD/DVD over the years are gone or don't work now (I seem to move every few years, and long-distance moves don't always go well).
Heck, I've bought MOO2 three times now, once on physical media, once from some now-gone download, and once from GOG. Now that it's on GOG I'm very happy. (The games I'm most frustrated with are Fantasy General and Space general, as my media doesn't seem to work and no one has them for download - GOG has some of the Panzer General games, but not these sequels).
Meanwhile, I've bought hundreds of games on Steam, and all but a handful still work (some depended too heavily on GameSpy). Maybe Steam will itself vanish one day, but the risk of that seems lower than the risk of a box being lost the next time I move, or simply no longer having an OS or emulator that I can get to work with older games.
I guess you don't play many EA games, given how often they go shutting down the servers.
That's certainly true, on both counts. Has nothing o do with physical media though - if the game is written to need a server even in single player mode it's crap no matter how you buy it. But fuck EA in any case.
Just imagine what happens if you lose or damage your physical media. That's happened to me about 20x as often as the download servers being unavailable - and the servers came back. Especially for older games, where I'm happy to pay again for someone to port it to a modern platform (GOG FTW).
Buying anything with "always on DRM" is foolish of course, but you get that with physical media as well.
I'm pretty skeptical of that concept (for geopolitical reasons if nothing else), but yeah, it at least seems possible. Space elevators don't just require the unobtanium cable, but a counterweight made of pure handwavium to avoid energy stored as oscillations in the cable from building up to catastrophic levels over time.
But I do take the idea of robotic asteroid mining in high orbit seriously (at least for fuel, a nickel-iron asteroid is something else), as there's so much ongoing, related, high-budget research happening today for military, industrial, and commercial robotics.
It's about when manufacturers go to some cheap knock-off that closely enough matches some other component in the market close enough to get the wrong drivers.
And this doesn't happen by accident. Every component self-identifies in some way during POST, or during Windows plug-and-play scan. Driver INF files list the ID strings to match against. Building a knock-off that identifies itself as the "real" product to avoid driver certification is an old trick, but at least it's understandable why someone would do it. Deliberately building a component that identifies as an existing product, but needs your own drivers? The mind boggles.
Sure, the fuel cost is a pretty trivial part of rocketry today, though it's more for high orbit. I believe LOX/Hydorgen fuel is about $10K/ton. That may be a NASA markup cost, I suspect it's rather cheaper for the Russians and Chinese, but still this stuff isn't like jet fuel - it's takes a considerable multiple of the energy of the fuel to make the fuel. It'll never be the sub-$1000/ton price of jet fuel.
You need about 60 tons of fuel to get 1 ton of payload into high orbit IIRC (if we're building anything interplanetary, you're paying that fuel cost one way or the other), so just the fuel costs alone (of lifting the "payload fuel") are about $600K/ton conservatively, but maybe half that cost on the cheap.
Current high orbit payload costs are about $18-36M/ton. SpaceX is shooting for 10% of that, and that certainly seems technically possible, but far into the land of diminishing returns. It seems quite fair to call $1M/ton "dirt cheap" (even if we somehow one day reach half that, it's not changing the game much).
So you're still looking at around $1B for each 1000 tons of fuel in high orbit.
ders of magnitude less expensive than the development of an asteroid mining colony.
Who said "colony"? Are a bunch of robots a "colony" now? Have we already "colonized" mars? The tech development from current vehicle automation and manufacturing automation to fully automated mining is of course non-trivial, but it's probably on the order of the several billion it would take to capture an asteroid and lift many tons of robots to high orbit, and there's certainly a market for fully automated mining here on Earth (and better autonomous vehicle programming, and better industrial automation in general).
Sorry, it's just never going to be "cheap" to lift thousands of tons of fuel into orbit. Lifting bulk raw materials into high orbit is just silly - the bulk raw materials are already up there, and landing a payload on an asteroid isn't science fiction any more. The robotics would break new ground, but that's a 1-time research costs with immediate commercial benefits.
We need dirt cheap rocket launches, and the willingness to allow a few sacrifices of lives along the way
I don't think that's really the fastest way - the blocking problem seems to be radiation killing you on the journey. There are risks of the form "20% of the ships won't make it" that people might be willing to take, but barriers of the form "no one can make it alive, or at least not healthy enough to do anything once there" aren't about risk taking.
We need cheap fuel in orbit more than anything else. The ability to send very heavy payloads to Mars would go a long way towards the current blocking issues. I'm not sure "dirt cheap" rocket launches to orbit will ever be cheap enough for this scale. However, dragging a CHON asteroid into orbit and building a robotic fuel processor on it would make fuel quite cheap (and if we can solve the latter problem, the problem of how to move a CHON asteroid is solved too).
This is a low-tech "bigger hammer" solution for everything but the robotics aspect. Viewed as simply a robotics engineering problem, it doesn't seem that far-fetched: automatic mining of a soft surface, and repairs on a refinery that can make usable fuel from messy inputs (doesn't have to be great, high-purity fuel, as we'll have a remarkable quantity of it already in orbit).
This decision by Google is stupid and sets a bad precedent.
"Precedent" implies this is the first time something like this happened. The trend is quite clear: don't depend on anything offered by Google for your business, as Google will just take it away at a whim. It's one thing to use their service opportunistically: this week they're the best choice, but we could use someone else next week. But to build your business around a Google service shows you're really not paying attention.
So what we have is an insanely more complicated way to manage your "VM-ish" things
Complicated how? It's the simplest way to manage lightweight containers at scale. It's not about what happens on any one machine (that's a well-solved problem), it's about fleet management in a way that decouples the hardware from the needs or the software, without the overhead of a full OS per container. I don't think it adds much value at the scale of a few machines, maybe not even at a few dozen machines.
It's designed to solve a deployment problem, not a security problem. People really like VMs for managing deployments - everything together in one image, no conflicts to resolve, very easy. Images can be shared internally or in an open-source way. Docker gives you that with far less overhead, so if you have a lot of very small "servers", you can cram them together in a VM (just like with jails), but without the security of VMs or jails.
For a single server, jails just seem better, but for managing a fleet, especially in the cloud, Docker has the infrastructure built.
Then you should be looking on some audiophile / high definition music sites where people actually understand this rather than a site that also sells plastic spoons.
Sites where you can buy the special green markers for the edges of CDs? And directional speaker cables? Are your interconnects "danceable"? Maybe you didn't pay enough.
Mine were all generated automagically 10+ years ago by some Hibernate tool
Oh, I agree, if you're just doing simple stuff where you just have some web form that "looks like" the backend storage, without complex logic in between, and no scale concerns, there's little enough difference. You're barely writing any business logic in the first place, so any tool will do, and Java has better frameworks.
In a sense, Java frameworks are a great programming language where they make sense, but they're only tangentially related to Java. Solving complex problems with the raw language, however, is where Java is constantly irritating compared to C#.
All that crap that you bemoan is just crap that's generated by the IDE
Yes, exactly, that's the problem. The language is so flawed that most of it is written by automation in the IDE. Why not have a language that's what you type in the IDE instead. C# finally, recently, got the idea right with properties that don't need backing fields: no more getters and setters, except where you're doing something more trivial, a great example of boilerplate reduction. List comprehensions that replace for loops with a single line are another great example.
Removing the boilerplate lets you read just the business logic when maintaining the code. The more business logic that fits on one screen, the more maintainable the code.
Xamarin's whole model is making the GUI layer cross platform (I've only just started, so I may be buying the hype, but that's the point of it). QT is the same - you write against their presentation abstraction, and they present something platform-appropriate on each platform. That said, you may want a differently-behaving UI on tablet vs desktop, but even there a sufficiently clever presentation layer could make that work as well.
LYNQ is not a cutting edge feature in C# - it's been there many years, and I've maintained very lambda-heavy code.that was already years old. Nothing fancy, it's just so much damn simpler to process lists that way than a foreach loop. Java 8 is still cutting edge, I guess, sadly enough, but Java 8 "streams" add enough boilerplate to list processing that they don't seem worth using over foreach loops - and that's pretty sad.
I often find it takes my three times as many lines of code in Java as in C#, for identical semantics. Lombok helps fix a lot of that, but Java+Lombok is almost a different programming language to read and learn.
Java is no more or less a security problem than any other application running on your server
My application running on my server is a fairly small target for black-hats, unless I'm writing bank software or something, exploits specific to my server are low-reward.
But JVM exploits are freaking golden. Every website everywhere that runs java becomes your target if you have a viable JVM exploit (well, everyone who runs Oracle Java, but that's nearly all of them). I'm sure it's worth millions to find one.
Yes, C# has the same issue, but IT departments are really very practiced at Windows Update, and MS is really very practiced at the work on their side. Oracle spent at least a year denying they needed to roll out frequent JVM fixes, and the large software corp I was working at at that time was similarly blithely unconcerned about potential risks. Everyone seems to get it now, and maybe the 2 will converge in terms of update tooling, but it's sure been an uphill battle for Oracle. Native languages don't have this problem.
Oh, it would totally be worth it. Especially with a large board displaying the weight, and comical cartoon animal animations accompanying the values. But sadly, we no longer have "shame" in America.
Slashdot Mirror
What does "given a pass" mean? I'm sure we'll hear what went wrong, and what they're changing to prevent it, before they launch again, just as with the failed landings. And of course we don't know what the failure rate is yet - my point was that "cheap" will make a higher failure rate acceptable for a lot of payloads. Of course I'd hope that as their process matures they'd continue improving both cost and reliability, but realistically it will take hundreds of launches to have a chance of both "good" and "cheap".
If they get even 10 re-uses, It will be remarkable, and allow much cheaper prices to orbit. I don't know what SpaceX expects in the next decade, but I don't expect them to reach their "!0%" pricing or a 1% failure rate that quickly: process refinement takes serious time. They don't need to to become a new, appealing alternative for launch.
Maybe I don't understand your point? What's being "rationalized" here? Or are you unwilling to participate in honest discussion here? I rather suspect you're just trolling.
You seem to be saying that it's unfair that /.er's don't hold SpaceX to the same standards of NASA? Of course not, that was never the goal, never the point, and no reasonable person ever expected that. SpaceX is cheap - a goal of 10% of NASA's launch costs. There will of course be trade-offs. That's as expected, and it's still a good thing.
Those private space insurance premiums should be skyrocketing....
I'm guessing /. will be a lot more forgiving than if this were a NASA failure.
The higher failure rate of SpaceX is expected. Setting aside Musk's marketing machine, it's understood that the medium-term goal here is to offer a higher-risk alternative (LEO prices below):
1. Western launch, traditional way: $4000-8000/pound (larger launches cheaper/pound). Low failure rate.
2. Non-western launch: $2000-3000/pound. Slightly higher failure rate.
3. SpaceX goal: $500-1000/pound. Slightly higher failure rate.
Long-term, SpaceX could achieve the same low failure rates through process refinement, but it's silly to expect that in the next decade.
Look, if your choices are $5000/pound with a 1% failure chance, or $1000/pound with a 5% failure rate, which do you pick? The rational answer depends entirely on the price to replace the payload, as two launches with a 5% failure rate have a very low chance both will fail. If your payload is "fuel" or "supplies" or something else cheaper than $5000/pound to replace, the added risk is completely the way to go.
I went to a shitty underfunded public school in a major city, located in a poor neighborhood and only black people live there (magnet schools: because rich people object to "bussing"). I lived in a variety of poor neighborhoods during and after my college years (admittedly Houston doesn't have the problems with escape-proof ghettos that the Democrat-only cities do). The main problem keeping people there, where I lived, really was either "attitude and culture" or "spending money on someone else".
Don't get me wrong: attitude and culture are no small thing! The strongest prison bars are the ones in our minds. But if you want to actually fix the problem, instead of keeping the problem around on purpose to serve your political goal, then you must understand the fix has to be cultural. I was stuck there myself for a few years due to my own attitude.
Everyone I talked to (and you do spend time talking to your neighbors when there fuck-all else you can afford to do) fell into one of these 3 groups:
1. Hardworking recent immigrants, legal or otherwise, who were already making enough to live somewhere better, but were sending most of their money back home (these are the best neighbors, BTW). They were here because the opportunities were good, and were anything but trapped. I'm sure their kids are doing great here.
2. A hardworking woman who wouldn't still be in this shitty neighborhood except for some layabout relative, always male, she was unwilling to force to work or throw out on the street. (I always suspected I only saw the ones who hadn't done that yet, but either way the problem wasn't lack of opportunity).
3. The majority: people who were convinced that working a regular, full-time job was some sort of scam. They were just too smart to fall for that scam, you see, to be tricked into working long hour for shit pay. They knew that wasn't the right answer, and any day know their next scam would work and they'd be rich. I was definitely trapped there by this, for years.
There's nothing in entertainment that glorifies, or even explains, that working long hours for shit pay is what the start of the path upwards looks like. That living with roomates in a ghetto apartment longer than you have to, spending less than you can even when that sucks bad, is how you make the space to change to a better job. That working a job that sucks so bad that you sit in the parking lot in a daze sometimes unable to walk inside and start the workday is just a temporary step on the path. None of that is explained, but it's normal when you start from the bottom. My immigrant neighbors understood it - I wish they'd have been able to explain it to me at the time.
Software development is more open to non-traditional backgrounds than most fields. I've participated in a couple hundred interviews and phone screens while working with a variety of the big names in my career, and no one ever cared about anything but "can you code, are you self-motivated, and are you an asshole". The opportunity is there, if you have the talent and the training, but its ultimately on you to make the changes to get the training and go after the opportunity.
The norm for big software companies seems to be: you have some number of open reqs for your team, and you're eager to fill them (both to get the work done, and because the might vanish). So you work your pipeline as best you can, interview anyone who passes a phone screen, and hire anyone who passes the interview. At most places I've worked, we end making an offer to about 1 in 20 people we phone screen (about 1 in 3 who we bring in); where I am now we make an offer to about 1 in 5 we bring in, and they don't always accept of course, so that's maybe 50 people who look good enough to phone screen to hire 1. You're much more likely to have too few qualified candidates than too many. Normally, if you end up with an extra guy you'd like to make an offer to, another team will be delighted to take him.
None of my games that came on floppies are still playable. About half the games I have bought on CD/DVD over the years are gone or don't work now (I seem to move every few years, and long-distance moves don't always go well).
Heck, I've bought MOO2 three times now, once on physical media, once from some now-gone download, and once from GOG. Now that it's on GOG I'm very happy. (The games I'm most frustrated with are Fantasy General and Space general, as my media doesn't seem to work and no one has them for download - GOG has some of the Panzer General games, but not these sequels).
Meanwhile, I've bought hundreds of games on Steam, and all but a handful still work (some depended too heavily on GameSpy). Maybe Steam will itself vanish one day, but the risk of that seems lower than the risk of a box being lost the next time I move, or simply no longer having an OS or emulator that I can get to work with older games.
I guess you don't play many EA games, given how often they go shutting down the servers.
That's certainly true, on both counts. Has nothing o do with physical media though - if the game is written to need a server even in single player mode it's crap no matter how you buy it. But fuck EA in any case.
Just imagine what happens if you lose or damage your physical media. That's happened to me about 20x as often as the download servers being unavailable - and the servers came back. Especially for older games, where I'm happy to pay again for someone to port it to a modern platform (GOG FTW).
Buying anything with "always on DRM" is foolish of course, but you get that with physical media as well.
I'm pretty skeptical of that concept (for geopolitical reasons if nothing else), but yeah, it at least seems possible. Space elevators don't just require the unobtanium cable, but a counterweight made of pure handwavium to avoid energy stored as oscillations in the cable from building up to catastrophic levels over time.
But I do take the idea of robotic asteroid mining in high orbit seriously (at least for fuel, a nickel-iron asteroid is something else), as there's so much ongoing, related, high-budget research happening today for military, industrial, and commercial robotics.
It's about when manufacturers go to some cheap knock-off that closely enough matches some other component in the market close enough to get the wrong drivers.
And this doesn't happen by accident. Every component self-identifies in some way during POST, or during Windows plug-and-play scan. Driver INF files list the ID strings to match against. Building a knock-off that identifies itself as the "real" product to avoid driver certification is an old trick, but at least it's understandable why someone would do it. Deliberately building a component that identifies as an existing product, but needs your own drivers? The mind boggles.
That's a bizarre way of looking at the problem.
Sure, the fuel cost is a pretty trivial part of rocketry today, though it's more for high orbit. I believe LOX/Hydorgen fuel is about $10K/ton. That may be a NASA markup cost, I suspect it's rather cheaper for the Russians and Chinese, but still this stuff isn't like jet fuel - it's takes a considerable multiple of the energy of the fuel to make the fuel. It'll never be the sub-$1000/ton price of jet fuel.
You need about 60 tons of fuel to get 1 ton of payload into high orbit IIRC (if we're building anything interplanetary, you're paying that fuel cost one way or the other), so just the fuel costs alone (of lifting the "payload fuel") are about $600K/ton conservatively, but maybe half that cost on the cheap.
Current high orbit payload costs are about $18-36M/ton. SpaceX is shooting for 10% of that, and that certainly seems technically possible, but far into the land of diminishing returns. It seems quite fair to call $1M/ton "dirt cheap" (even if we somehow one day reach half that, it's not changing the game much).
So you're still looking at around $1B for each 1000 tons of fuel in high orbit.
ders of magnitude less expensive than the development of an asteroid mining colony.
Who said "colony"? Are a bunch of robots a "colony" now? Have we already "colonized" mars? The tech development from current vehicle automation and manufacturing automation to fully automated mining is of course non-trivial, but it's probably on the order of the several billion it would take to capture an asteroid and lift many tons of robots to high orbit, and there's certainly a market for fully automated mining here on Earth (and better autonomous vehicle programming, and better industrial automation in general).
Sorry, it's just never going to be "cheap" to lift thousands of tons of fuel into orbit. Lifting bulk raw materials into high orbit is just silly - the bulk raw materials are already up there, and landing a payload on an asteroid isn't science fiction any more. The robotics would break new ground, but that's a 1-time research costs with immediate commercial benefits.
We need dirt cheap rocket launches, and the willingness to allow a few sacrifices of lives along the way
I don't think that's really the fastest way - the blocking problem seems to be radiation killing you on the journey. There are risks of the form "20% of the ships won't make it" that people might be willing to take, but barriers of the form "no one can make it alive, or at least not healthy enough to do anything once there" aren't about risk taking.
We need cheap fuel in orbit more than anything else. The ability to send very heavy payloads to Mars would go a long way towards the current blocking issues. I'm not sure "dirt cheap" rocket launches to orbit will ever be cheap enough for this scale. However, dragging a CHON asteroid into orbit and building a robotic fuel processor on it would make fuel quite cheap (and if we can solve the latter problem, the problem of how to move a CHON asteroid is solved too).
This is a low-tech "bigger hammer" solution for everything but the robotics aspect. Viewed as simply a robotics engineering problem, it doesn't seem that far-fetched: automatic mining of a soft surface, and repairs on a refinery that can make usable fuel from messy inputs (doesn't have to be great, high-purity fuel, as we'll have a remarkable quantity of it already in orbit).
This decision by Google is stupid and sets a bad precedent.
"Precedent" implies this is the first time something like this happened. The trend is quite clear: don't depend on anything offered by Google for your business, as Google will just take it away at a whim. It's one thing to use their service opportunistically: this week they're the best choice, but we could use someone else next week. But to build your business around a Google service shows you're really not paying attention.
So what we have is an insanely more complicated way to manage your "VM-ish" things
Complicated how? It's the simplest way to manage lightweight containers at scale. It's not about what happens on any one machine (that's a well-solved problem), it's about fleet management in a way that decouples the hardware from the needs or the software, without the overhead of a full OS per container. I don't think it adds much value at the scale of a few machines, maybe not even at a few dozen machines.
It's designed to solve a deployment problem, not a security problem. People really like VMs for managing deployments - everything together in one image, no conflicts to resolve, very easy. Images can be shared internally or in an open-source way. Docker gives you that with far less overhead, so if you have a lot of very small "servers", you can cram them together in a VM (just like with jails), but without the security of VMs or jails.
For a single server, jails just seem better, but for managing a fleet, especially in the cloud, Docker has the infrastructure built.
Then you should be looking on some audiophile / high definition music sites where people actually understand this rather than a site that also sells plastic spoons.
Sites where you can buy the special green markers for the edges of CDs? And directional speaker cables? Are your interconnects "danceable"? Maybe you didn't pay enough.
Mine were all generated automagically 10+ years ago by some Hibernate tool
Oh, I agree, if you're just doing simple stuff where you just have some web form that "looks like" the backend storage, without complex logic in between, and no scale concerns, there's little enough difference. You're barely writing any business logic in the first place, so any tool will do, and Java has better frameworks.
In a sense, Java frameworks are a great programming language where they make sense, but they're only tangentially related to Java. Solving complex problems with the raw language, however, is where Java is constantly irritating compared to C#.
All that crap that you bemoan is just crap that's generated by the IDE
Yes, exactly, that's the problem. The language is so flawed that most of it is written by automation in the IDE. Why not have a language that's what you type in the IDE instead. C# finally, recently, got the idea right with properties that don't need backing fields: no more getters and setters, except where you're doing something more trivial, a great example of boilerplate reduction. List comprehensions that replace for loops with a single line are another great example.
Removing the boilerplate lets you read just the business logic when maintaining the code. The more business logic that fits on one screen, the more maintainable the code.
Plus larger people wouldn't travel, and then the cost of tickets would increase.
Wait, what? Lower demand to you means higher prices? Maybe a bit less 420, dave.
Xamarin's whole model is making the GUI layer cross platform (I've only just started, so I may be buying the hype, but that's the point of it). QT is the same - you write against their presentation abstraction, and they present something platform-appropriate on each platform. That said, you may want a differently-behaving UI on tablet vs desktop, but even there a sufficiently clever presentation layer could make that work as well.
LYNQ is not a cutting edge feature in C# - it's been there many years, and I've maintained very lambda-heavy code.that was already years old. Nothing fancy, it's just so much damn simpler to process lists that way than a foreach loop. Java 8 is still cutting edge, I guess, sadly enough, but Java 8 "streams" add enough boilerplate to list processing that they don't seem worth using over foreach loops - and that's pretty sad.
I often find it takes my three times as many lines of code in Java as in C#, for identical semantics. Lombok helps fix a lot of that, but Java+Lombok is almost a different programming language to read and learn.
Java is no more or less a security problem than any other application running on your server
My application running on my server is a fairly small target for black-hats, unless I'm writing bank software or something, exploits specific to my server are low-reward.
But JVM exploits are freaking golden. Every website everywhere that runs java becomes your target if you have a viable JVM exploit (well, everyone who runs Oracle Java, but that's nearly all of them). I'm sure it's worth millions to find one.
Yes, C# has the same issue, but IT departments are really very practiced at Windows Update, and MS is really very practiced at the work on their side. Oracle spent at least a year denying they needed to roll out frequent JVM fixes, and the large software corp I was working at at that time was similarly blithely unconcerned about potential risks. Everyone seems to get it now, and maybe the 2 will converge in terms of update tooling, but it's sure been an uphill battle for Oracle. Native languages don't have this problem.
Oh, it would totally be worth it. Especially with a large board displaying the weight, and comical cartoon animal animations accompanying the values. But sadly, we no longer have "shame" in America.