I have to disagree with this. I work for a large etailer ( w/ millions of hits a day) that has been switching to Java in recent years. As with all places we have a range of programming skill levels throughout the dev teams, though most I would classify as average/intermediate. The over-all amount of code, the complexity of the code and environment, and work required by the sysops to maintain the code very quickly outpaced the old PHP stack. While our sysop teams focus on trying to keeping tomcat running, we have an old PHP forum quietly humming away in the corner taking almost minimal work to keep running while it serves 60% of our traffic. My experience with it has been pretty negative in this environment with many 'average' developers.
But, that being said, this argument is mostly subjective, as the quality and quantity of code is less dependent on the language, and more dependent on the people/organization developing and driving it. I think where java shines is it's ability to easily enforce constraints and the inherent security benefits from a compiled language. But it also costs far more to spin up a Java environment and maintain it, so it is something that most startups will not be able to do out of the gates.
I think you missed his point. Even before this Net Neutrality bill ruckus the government was monitoring traffic so in that respect it doesn't change anything. But more importantly it doesn't give the government more control, it states that the ISP cannot prefer one site's traffic or another.
The argument that this stifles competition is mind boggling to me. If you allow them to pick and choose traffic, and can 100% guarantee you that competition will be stifled. And don't forget, they didn't build the infrastructure on their own. The telecoms have taken in billions of dollars of tax payer subsidies and land to build it out, and as such I feel we as tax payers have a right to regulate how they run their lines.
Anytime an article uses the terms such as "left-wing activists" or "right-wing activists", it will be immediately disregarded and ignored due to political bias and hidden agendas. But that's just my 2 cents.
Interesting link there. I always get a kick how many of the folks trying to casting doubt on global warming use links to organizations linked (directly or indirectly) to the fossil fuel industry. Hmm, I wonder what those articles are going to conclude?
in the context that my only option is Cableone. If you download more than about 1 GB from 12 pm to 12 am whack you down to 1/5 your usual download speed for the day. I'm not saying that what Comcast and AT&T are doing is right by any stretch of the imagination, but from this yard the grass looks a lot greener over there...:)
Not sure where you find your scientists, but most of the ones I know (including the GF who is a biologist) are more concerned with find out why something works the way it does than pushing any particular agenda. Nor do any of them view science as a religion, though the way they state their findings maybe sounds a slightly religious at times. It's as hard to argue against facts as it is to argue the absence of god to a minister. They view it as a learning process and a discovery process.
The reason why it becomes political is that the the politicians, and/or companies with something to lose, make it that way. Science is an inherently neutral pursuit as I stated above: Why does this work this way? The shining example of this is global warming. It's obviously pretty damning to the petroleum and coal industries so what did they do? They setup a bunch of astroturf style institutes and non-profits, staffed them with a bunch of petrol-geologists and lobbyists, and started pointing at them saying the climatologists in the world have it all wrong. Do a little googling and you'll be able to find the links.
Another great example of this is smoking. The tobacco companies did the same thing. They introduced a bunch of bogus "scientific" reports that muddied up the water so much nothing was done about it for way too many years.
Scientist want to figure out why the ball is rolling down the hill. Politicians want to convince you it's actually rolling up.
I'm voting for Obama all the way. I'd rather live in a free society where one can speak their mind and have the freedom to pursue their dreams, than live in a republican authoritarian system with religious whips and forced communist style patriotism.
Slashdot Mirror
I have to disagree with this. I work for a large etailer ( w/ millions of hits a day) that has been switching to Java in recent years. As with all places we have a range of programming skill levels throughout the dev teams, though most I would classify as average/intermediate. The over-all amount of code, the complexity of the code and environment, and work required by the sysops to maintain the code very quickly outpaced the old PHP stack. While our sysop teams focus on trying to keeping tomcat running, we have an old PHP forum quietly humming away in the corner taking almost minimal work to keep running while it serves 60% of our traffic. My experience with it has been pretty negative in this environment with many 'average' developers.
But, that being said, this argument is mostly subjective, as the quality and quantity of code is less dependent on the language, and more dependent on the people/organization developing and driving it. I think where java shines is it's ability to easily enforce constraints and the inherent security benefits from a compiled language. But it also costs far more to spin up a Java environment and maintain it, so it is something that most startups will not be able to do out of the gates.
I think you missed his point. Even before this Net Neutrality bill ruckus the government was monitoring traffic so in that respect it doesn't change anything. But more importantly it doesn't give the government more control, it states that the ISP cannot prefer one site's traffic or another. The argument that this stifles competition is mind boggling to me. If you allow them to pick and choose traffic, and can 100% guarantee you that competition will be stifled. And don't forget, they didn't build the infrastructure on their own. The telecoms have taken in billions of dollars of tax payer subsidies and land to build it out, and as such I feel we as tax payers have a right to regulate how they run their lines.
I concur. Been using VirtualBox for a couple years now. There's nothing better for a fully cross platform solution.
Anytime an article uses the terms such as "left-wing activists" or "right-wing activists", it will be immediately disregarded and ignored due to political bias and hidden agendas. But that's just my 2 cents.
Interesting link there. I always get a kick how many of the folks trying to casting doubt on global warming use links to organizations linked (directly or indirectly) to the fossil fuel industry. Hmm, I wonder what those articles are going to conclude?
in the context that my only option is Cableone. If you download more than about 1 GB from 12 pm to 12 am whack you down to 1/5 your usual download speed for the day. I'm not saying that what Comcast and AT&T are doing is right by any stretch of the imagination, but from this yard the grass looks a lot greener over there... :)
You left another modern language that supports GOTOs. It's built into C# (and of course VB).
Not sure where you find your scientists, but most of the ones I know (including the GF who is a biologist) are more concerned with find out why something works the way it does than pushing any particular agenda. Nor do any of them view science as a religion, though the way they state their findings maybe sounds a slightly religious at times. It's as hard to argue against facts as it is to argue the absence of god to a minister. They view it as a learning process and a discovery process.
The reason why it becomes political is that the the politicians, and/or companies with something to lose, make it that way. Science is an inherently neutral pursuit as I stated above: Why does this work this way? The shining example of this is global warming. It's obviously pretty damning to the petroleum and coal industries so what did they do? They setup a bunch of astroturf style institutes and non-profits, staffed them with a bunch of petrol-geologists and lobbyists, and started pointing at them saying the climatologists in the world have it all wrong. Do a little googling and you'll be able to find the links.
Another great example of this is smoking. The tobacco companies did the same thing. They introduced a bunch of bogus "scientific" reports that muddied up the water so much nothing was done about it for way too many years.
Scientist want to figure out why the ball is rolling down the hill. Politicians want to convince you it's actually rolling up.
I'm voting for Obama all the way. I'd rather live in a free society where one can speak their mind and have the freedom to pursue their dreams, than live in a republican authoritarian system with religious whips and forced communist style patriotism.