People don't like it because it requires fudge after fudge after fudge to make it work.
The problem is that everything from HTTP's stateless nature, through to Javascript's poor OO support mean that the underlying technologies aren't ideal for building larege applications. There's nothing inherently wrong with HTTP being stateless and there's nothing inherently wrong with Javascript having poor OOP support, but it does mean they're not ideal for building applications of a reasonable size. You can only fudge such technologies so far and this is why Google Apps as good as they are are still poor mans copies of MS Office/Open Office.
We've had things like Flash, we've had things like XBAPs but I suspect eventually it's going to have to be done properly - an open cross platform application development platform that possibly has it's own app:// protocol handler but that can hence cross-link too and from http based documents if we're going to really see the web advance. Either way, we're not going to be able to keep down the current path indefinitely, I can't see us being able to mangle http et. al. for another 20 years to suit changing requirements precisely because we are reaching the point where the required technology mangling is getting too prohibitive to do anything of any increasing complexity.
Languages like Javascript are what they are, not perfect, but not inherently bad, but it's not suited to large scale application development, it's simply the wrong tool for that job, and although you can fudge the wrong tool for the job into working for a while there reaches a point where this just stops being the case. At some point we're going to have to see a supplement to current web technologies built specifically for the purpose of application delivery and until it happens I don't really blame people for complaining about the current fudging that's going on to try and avoid that inevitable fact.
"Ever try to figure out WTF a Java Spring or Java EE app is? Its a bleeding mess!"
They're not a mess, they just just push a higher level of abstraction than junior developers and the like can cope with which enhances their modularity and testability leading to more maintainable better software but the price of that is the learning curve and when you're on the lower end of that curve yes, you can do far more harm than good with it.
It's not inherently bad, no more a mess than the theory of relativity is compared to Newtonian physics, sure the former is harder to understand and much more complex, but it also works properly as you tend towards c and just as Newtonian physics is fine for most people's needs it doesn't fill the needs of high end expert physicists to solve the problems they encounter.
"I question anyone who says it isn't an issue. Either you aren't doing development or you haven't built something complex enough to see the various issues."
Please consider that there may be a 3rd option - they're simply more experienced and competent than you are.
Developers such as Win32 API programmers have been dealing with this exact issue for about two decades now, it's trivially dealt with because to any developer with even the slightest bit of experience this sort of problem is run of the mill, a relative non-issue. The whole PC market was built around much more numerous combinations of hardware and software yet was still massively more successful than the likes of Apple's one track ecosystem precisely because developers did learn to deal with it, and more often than not it just means ensuring your software architecture properly abstracts what it needs to abstract.
This argument is FUD and always has been. It was a myth made up by marketing trolls for Sony during the last console war trying to justify why their console wasn't selling as well as the XBox 360 for a long long time.
The fact is you can't just "stuff" a channel with millions of units, because retail wont accept it. They're not just going to accept being a storage repository for all your devices you can't sell, that doesn't, and won't happen.
You may be able to get away with stuffing by a few thousand units, but retail corporations have a pretty easy time of telling what does and doesn't and is and isn't selling/going to sell because of the data mining they all engage in nowadays.
Try and shuffle even a million extra units to a retailer to try and pump your "shipped vs. sold" stats and they'll laugh in your face and tell you to take them straight back.
In reality, shipped and sold are basically identical. Retailers stock pretty much only what they can sell with very little tolerance beyond that. They don't want unsellable products in their stock rooms because it costs them way too much when they could be stocking sellable products instead.
The other issue with the whole "shipped vs. sold" myth is that most companies who say they've "sold" x number of devices are going off their shipped figures anyway, because there's generally no feedback mechanism by which they can tell whether their product has actually sold when they ship it beyond looking at how many devices retailers are willing to let them ship.
So in practice shipped and sold are the exact same thing. If someone says they "sold" x number of devices then unless they're selling direct and there's none being sold via retail then they're lying to you and have no idea what they've sold, only what they shipped. If someone says they shipped x number of devices, then they did, and those devices will more often than not be sold in very short time, otherwise they'll be returned to the manufacturer.
There are smaller retailers that aren't so efficient at ensuring their shipped and sold figures remain pretty similar, but they're such a minority as to be negligible which is why in general coupled with the fact sold normally equals shipped anyway you can safely assume that shipped ~= sold. There is no big channel stuffing multi-million unit conspiracies going on as Sony pretended with the XBox 360 originally, turns out those boxes were indeed actually selling.
"I think there's a cultural view that GBã1 is about equal to US$2 even though this hasn't been the case since the 1980's."
It was not so long ago. I got this exchange rate in about 2006/2007 and it didn't stray much below this in the surrounding years before and after. It's only with the financial crisis starting around 2008 that it really plummeted.
Re:Why not make dollar signs optional?
on
PHP 5.5.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
To be fair, one of the arguments for dynamic languages is less code needs typing because type conversion is handled automatically (some of the time).
With PHP all that's undone by the fact you're typing unnecessary extra $ signs everywhere and having to use === instead of == half the time. If you've got those extra keystrokes all the time then what exactly is PHP's advantage again? It doesn't have any.
So there is a fair argument against it even if it was a single keystroke (it's not, it's a shift+keystroke).
Yes it does. It's unnecessarily verbose, it's standard library has inconsistent parameter and naming ordering and it has a number of well documented bugs and quirks that require you to write odd code to work around them.
It hasn't until recently properly supported threading, and even now it's hardly fair to call it proper threading support so for something like that you need to write ugly hacks.
All of these things result in sub-par code and all of these things are an unfortunate fact of developing with PHP.
So no, it's not necessarily the programmer, PHP does indeed actually force you to write bad code.
People hate it because it's objectively just a very bad language.
Re:PHP bad. 'C' Good: printf(1+2+"3+4+5");
on
PHP 5.5.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
"The language is as good as the developer using it."
Microsoft have a habit of that depending on what you're doing. I'm unamused by their graphics APIs over the years - GDI, GDI+, DirectDraw, Direct2D, Direct3D, WPF's rendering controls, XNA, Managed DirectX, WinRT's drawing functionality.
It just gets silly, apart from Direct3D the shelf life of a Microsoft rendering API seems to be about 2 minutes and it's just not worth investing in them anymore, best to just use OpenGL.
But despite that other Windows technologies and related APIs have had a decent shelf life, most people are unaware that MFC to this day is still well supported - it got the new ribbon controls etc. before WPF or anything else did for example so it's probably going on what, the best part of 20 years old now and still going strong.
ASP.NET MVC is a particularly nice framework and it's learnt some of the better lessons of Spring like good IoC support, whilst replacing it's sometimes over the top configuration with convention over configuration, so I really quite like it, it's such a pleasure to work with.
It's really hit an miss in the Microsoft world, but I suspect that's more to do with the ethos of different teams - the folks behind MFC seem happy to plod along maintaining without causing any drama, but whoever is responsible for graphics API strategy I can only imagine is a schizophrenic with severe ADHD who can't stay focussed on the same thing for more than 5 minutes without changing his mind or contradicting himself.
It sounds like you're complaining about certain usage of certain aspects of Spring rather than Spring's libraries in general.
Sure you can create a clusterfuck with it, you can with any language and framework. Doesn't change the fact that it's one of the most succesfully used and appreciated Java frameworks by millions of other people though. It's succesful and popular for a reason, because plenty of people find it the best option.
How do popular 3rd party frameworks prevent that given that some of them make more sense and are much better thought out than the Java standard library and are arguably better supported?
The Spring framework for example implements more of the Java standards than the standard library itself does.
I'm not sure that argument makes sense, using Java + Spring isn't going to leave your code any less vulnerable to maintenance and and scope issues anymore than using C# and the core.NET framework would.
In fact, using a 3rd party framework like Spring will greatly improve maintainability because it provides methods that make far more sense than some of the standard Java library ones for common tasks, so you can right much more maintainable code, and you don't have to go out of scope writing fairly common things that aren't in the Java standard library, but are in Spring and similar.
Microsoft has had the benefit of being the single controller of the.NET framework whilst Java has been victim of design by committee a lot of the time. This is why the.NET framework has managed to stay tidier and more focussed, but as I said in my other post what does it matter, because who the fuck sticks to just the core framework anyway when there are things like Spring out there?
Not this fucking idiot again.Hhe showed a complete and utter lack of knowledge and was thoroughly ripped to pieces here on Slashdot for it last time.
Why the fuck is he back poisoning our screens once more with his uninformed tosh.
For what it's worth no, they're not a tie and this just highlights once more how little a fucking clue this guy has on the topic. The.NET framework is far more fully feature than the core Java API and is frankly much tidier too (Date/Time handling for example) but it's irrelevant isn't it because who limits themselves to that? Most will use something like Spring to fill the gap anyway and yes, both languages have an insane amount of additional frameworks you can use that both similiarly do everything you'd ever want and then some.
Sadly that's the way of the games market in general and has been for some time now. No resale has been mostly dead since Steam in the PC world and single account associated unlock codes in the console world and no offline play came about with the likes of Starcraft 2, Diablo and Sim City to name a few.
This is one that really can't be pinned on Microsoft as it's been entirely the publishers that have pushed it - EA, Valve, Ubisoft, Activision/Blizzard. They've all been at it and all been pushing it ever more vigorously across every platform. It's annoying to say the least.
"I don't think your reputation can be salvaged at this point... most people have already decided on the PS4, and will be leary of signing up since you're just a firmware update away from returning to putting 'em over a barrel."
This made me lol. It's as if you actually believe Sony can't and wouldn't do exactly the same.
"Advocates for Assange understand everything except why he should be treated the same as the vast majority of people that go before the Swedish legal system."
So there we have it, you're saying it's about "advocates of Assange", this has the implication that you're the counter to that because if you're painting it as black and white, you're either an advocate for Assange or you're not, then you must be the counter.
In admitting that you view this in black and white and that you're anti-Assange you're demonstrating why you can't think clearly on this, why you can't see that it's more than that.
There's a fundamental and simple reason why he shouldn't be treated the same as everyone else and that's simply because he's not the same as everyone else. Everyone else doesn't have a secret court in the US running test trials against him, everyone else doesn't have US politicians suggesting he should be assassinated, everyone else isn't wanted by a state with a track record of extraordinary rendition and throwing national norms out the window. Everyone else hasn't faced extradition for mere questioning. One can't simply pretend that Assange hasn't done something perfectly legal but that America still desperately wants to get hold of him for, you can't just pretend that doesn't exist. You can't pretend there aren't oddities about the whole case, there are, that's why Ecuador saw it valid to grant him asylum.
If you can't see why there is something special about this case then there's no point continuing this conversation as you have far too black and white a view of the world turning it into an "Advocates for Assange" against "Haters of Assange" petty fanboy battle.
I don't misunderstand it but I think you must've completely ignored what I said.
I said it doesn't matter if there are differences, the differences aren't so great that Sweden can't question him in the UK, in the Ecuadorian embassy before pressing charges, because as the Ecuadorian FM said at the time, they've done exactly this before. What's so hard to understand about that? It's a made up excuse that they can't question him here, there's no merit to it, they've done it before.
Right and that's fine, but what's to stop them questioning him still in the embassy to get to that point?
They have a perfectly trivial cheap and easy option to strengthen their case but for some obscure reason they want to avoid it.
The most likely reason they want to avoid it is because they know their case has no merit and what they're really actually interested in is just getting him to Sweden where they have also refused to give a guarantee that they wont send him on to the US with or without Britain's blessing.
If I was the Swedish authorities, and I genuinely believed in my case and that he genuinely needed to be brought to justice for rape, I'd do what needed to be done to prove my case and get him to face justice. I wouldn't go out my way to avoid making him face justice by refusing to question him on neutral territory and refusing to explicitly delink his trip to Sweden with potential onwards extradition to the US by at least giving a guarantee he would be returned to Britain or somewhere else and a re-extradition attempt would be made to pass him on to the US if the US put a request forward.
If Assange is guilty of rape I have absolutely no problem with him facing justice, but the Swedish authorities must understand his suspicions and those shared by Ecuador and many millions of other people in the world. They must accept that to get him to face justice over the rape allegations that he must be protected from arbitrary extradition to the US given that he has broken no law in US territory.
It's not that I'm an Assange fanboy but I am a justice fanboy and serious attempts at seeking justice just aren't being sought here - again it'd cost nothing and take so little effort to just question him in the Ecuadorian embassy, why not just do it to strengthen their case? why so desperately attempt to avoid that?
This excuse has come up before but it was debunked when Assange was granted asylum as the Ecuadorian authorities explicitly addressed it pointing out that the excuse is invalid given that Sweden has done exactly what they are requesting in other cases in the past.
In other words it's a made up excuse by his detractors that has no actual basis in reality. If they've done it in the past they can do it in this case.
Unless there's clear evidence of actual intent rather than just a throwaway statement then it should be treat as just that, a throwaway statement.
He's not wanted on allegations of sexual assault either, he's wanted for questioning over allegations of sexual assault. There's a subtle but distinct difference in that there still isn't enough evidence backing those allegations to go ahead with actual charges to try him over the allegations.
I'm not sure that a lot of those things are really static typing overhead, for example even in some dynamic languages you still have to type var.
A lot of the things you mention are more related to OOP than specifically a result of static vs. dynamic typing, for example most dynamic languages still have interfaces. Take point 7 also for example - C++ doesn't require a mandatory class container for static methods, constants and globals, this is entirely a language specific thing.
Slashdot Mirror
People don't like it because it requires fudge after fudge after fudge to make it work.
The problem is that everything from HTTP's stateless nature, through to Javascript's poor OO support mean that the underlying technologies aren't ideal for building larege applications. There's nothing inherently wrong with HTTP being stateless and there's nothing inherently wrong with Javascript having poor OOP support, but it does mean they're not ideal for building applications of a reasonable size. You can only fudge such technologies so far and this is why Google Apps as good as they are are still poor mans copies of MS Office/Open Office.
We've had things like Flash, we've had things like XBAPs but I suspect eventually it's going to have to be done properly - an open cross platform application development platform that possibly has it's own app:// protocol handler but that can hence cross-link too and from http based documents if we're going to really see the web advance. Either way, we're not going to be able to keep down the current path indefinitely, I can't see us being able to mangle http et. al. for another 20 years to suit changing requirements precisely because we are reaching the point where the required technology mangling is getting too prohibitive to do anything of any increasing complexity.
Languages like Javascript are what they are, not perfect, but not inherently bad, but it's not suited to large scale application development, it's simply the wrong tool for that job, and although you can fudge the wrong tool for the job into working for a while there reaches a point where this just stops being the case. At some point we're going to have to see a supplement to current web technologies built specifically for the purpose of application delivery and until it happens I don't really blame people for complaining about the current fudging that's going on to try and avoid that inevitable fact.
"Ever try to figure out WTF a Java Spring or Java EE app is? Its a bleeding mess!"
They're not a mess, they just just push a higher level of abstraction than junior developers and the like can cope with which enhances their modularity and testability leading to more maintainable better software but the price of that is the learning curve and when you're on the lower end of that curve yes, you can do far more harm than good with it.
It's not inherently bad, no more a mess than the theory of relativity is compared to Newtonian physics, sure the former is harder to understand and much more complex, but it also works properly as you tend towards c and just as Newtonian physics is fine for most people's needs it doesn't fill the needs of high end expert physicists to solve the problems they encounter.
"I question anyone who says it isn't an issue. Either you aren't doing development or you haven't built something complex enough to see the various issues."
Please consider that there may be a 3rd option - they're simply more experienced and competent than you are.
Developers such as Win32 API programmers have been dealing with this exact issue for about two decades now, it's trivially dealt with because to any developer with even the slightest bit of experience this sort of problem is run of the mill, a relative non-issue. The whole PC market was built around much more numerous combinations of hardware and software yet was still massively more successful than the likes of Apple's one track ecosystem precisely because developers did learn to deal with it, and more often than not it just means ensuring your software architecture properly abstracts what it needs to abstract.
This argument is FUD and always has been. It was a myth made up by marketing trolls for Sony during the last console war trying to justify why their console wasn't selling as well as the XBox 360 for a long long time.
The fact is you can't just "stuff" a channel with millions of units, because retail wont accept it. They're not just going to accept being a storage repository for all your devices you can't sell, that doesn't, and won't happen.
You may be able to get away with stuffing by a few thousand units, but retail corporations have a pretty easy time of telling what does and doesn't and is and isn't selling/going to sell because of the data mining they all engage in nowadays.
Try and shuffle even a million extra units to a retailer to try and pump your "shipped vs. sold" stats and they'll laugh in your face and tell you to take them straight back.
In reality, shipped and sold are basically identical. Retailers stock pretty much only what they can sell with very little tolerance beyond that. They don't want unsellable products in their stock rooms because it costs them way too much when they could be stocking sellable products instead.
The other issue with the whole "shipped vs. sold" myth is that most companies who say they've "sold" x number of devices are going off their shipped figures anyway, because there's generally no feedback mechanism by which they can tell whether their product has actually sold when they ship it beyond looking at how many devices retailers are willing to let them ship.
So in practice shipped and sold are the exact same thing. If someone says they "sold" x number of devices then unless they're selling direct and there's none being sold via retail then they're lying to you and have no idea what they've sold, only what they shipped. If someone says they shipped x number of devices, then they did, and those devices will more often than not be sold in very short time, otherwise they'll be returned to the manufacturer.
There are smaller retailers that aren't so efficient at ensuring their shipped and sold figures remain pretty similar, but they're such a minority as to be negligible which is why in general coupled with the fact sold normally equals shipped anyway you can safely assume that shipped ~= sold. There is no big channel stuffing multi-million unit conspiracies going on as Sony pretended with the XBox 360 originally, turns out those boxes were indeed actually selling.
"I think there's a cultural view that GBã1 is about equal to US$2 even though this hasn't been the case since the 1980's."
It was not so long ago. I got this exchange rate in about 2006/2007 and it didn't stray much below this in the surrounding years before and after. It's only with the financial crisis starting around 2008 that it really plummeted.
To be fair, one of the arguments for dynamic languages is less code needs typing because type conversion is handled automatically (some of the time).
With PHP all that's undone by the fact you're typing unnecessary extra $ signs everywhere and having to use === instead of == half the time. If you've got those extra keystrokes all the time then what exactly is PHP's advantage again? It doesn't have any.
So there is a fair argument against it even if it was a single keystroke (it's not, it's a shift+keystroke).
"PHP does not cause you to write bad code"
Yes it does. It's unnecessarily verbose, it's standard library has inconsistent parameter and naming ordering and it has a number of well documented bugs and quirks that require you to write odd code to work around them.
It hasn't until recently properly supported threading, and even now it's hardly fair to call it proper threading support so for something like that you need to write ugly hacks.
All of these things result in sub-par code and all of these things are an unfortunate fact of developing with PHP.
So no, it's not necessarily the programmer, PHP does indeed actually force you to write bad code.
People hate it because it's objectively just a very bad language.
"The language is as good as the developer using it."
Exactly.
That's why PHP only has bad developers.
But he made FIVE HUNDREDTY K $ so he must know what he's on about!!!11111
Or maybe he's just as full of shit about that as well.
I guess you just don't unit test otherwise it would all make sense.
It definitely helps you write better more maintainable software if you're doing anything non trivial and have a proper unit testing regime.
Microsoft have a habit of that depending on what you're doing. I'm unamused by their graphics APIs over the years - GDI, GDI+, DirectDraw, Direct2D, Direct3D, WPF's rendering controls, XNA, Managed DirectX, WinRT's drawing functionality.
It just gets silly, apart from Direct3D the shelf life of a Microsoft rendering API seems to be about 2 minutes and it's just not worth investing in them anymore, best to just use OpenGL.
But despite that other Windows technologies and related APIs have had a decent shelf life, most people are unaware that MFC to this day is still well supported - it got the new ribbon controls etc. before WPF or anything else did for example so it's probably going on what, the best part of 20 years old now and still going strong.
ASP.NET MVC is a particularly nice framework and it's learnt some of the better lessons of Spring like good IoC support, whilst replacing it's sometimes over the top configuration with convention over configuration, so I really quite like it, it's such a pleasure to work with.
It's really hit an miss in the Microsoft world, but I suspect that's more to do with the ethos of different teams - the folks behind MFC seem happy to plod along maintaining without causing any drama, but whoever is responsible for graphics API strategy I can only imagine is a schizophrenic with severe ADHD who can't stay focussed on the same thing for more than 5 minutes without changing his mind or contradicting himself.
It sounds like you're complaining about certain usage of certain aspects of Spring rather than Spring's libraries in general.
Sure you can create a clusterfuck with it, you can with any language and framework. Doesn't change the fact that it's one of the most succesfully used and appreciated Java frameworks by millions of other people though. It's succesful and popular for a reason, because plenty of people find it the best option.
More people actively maintaining it is what I was referring to.
How do popular 3rd party frameworks prevent that given that some of them make more sense and are much better thought out than the Java standard library and are arguably better supported?
The Spring framework for example implements more of the Java standards than the standard library itself does.
I'm not sure that argument makes sense, using Java + Spring isn't going to leave your code any less vulnerable to maintenance and and scope issues anymore than using C# and the core .NET framework would.
In fact, using a 3rd party framework like Spring will greatly improve maintainability because it provides methods that make far more sense than some of the standard Java library ones for common tasks, so you can right much more maintainable code, and you don't have to go out of scope writing fairly common things that aren't in the Java standard library, but are in Spring and similar.
Microsoft has had the benefit of being the single controller of the .NET framework whilst Java has been victim of design by committee a lot of the time. This is why the .NET framework has managed to stay tidier and more focussed, but as I said in my other post what does it matter, because who the fuck sticks to just the core framework anyway when there are things like Spring out there?
Not this fucking idiot again.Hhe showed a complete and utter lack of knowledge and was thoroughly ripped to pieces here on Slashdot for it last time.
Why the fuck is he back poisoning our screens once more with his uninformed tosh.
For what it's worth no, they're not a tie and this just highlights once more how little a fucking clue this guy has on the topic. The .NET framework is far more fully feature than the core Java API and is frankly much tidier too (Date/Time handling for example) but it's irrelevant isn't it because who limits themselves to that? Most will use something like Spring to fill the gap anyway and yes, both languages have an insane amount of additional frameworks you can use that both similiarly do everything you'd ever want and then some.
Sadly that's the way of the games market in general and has been for some time now. No resale has been mostly dead since Steam in the PC world and single account associated unlock codes in the console world and no offline play came about with the likes of Starcraft 2, Diablo and Sim City to name a few.
This is one that really can't be pinned on Microsoft as it's been entirely the publishers that have pushed it - EA, Valve, Ubisoft, Activision/Blizzard. They've all been at it and all been pushing it ever more vigorously across every platform. It's annoying to say the least.
"I don't think your reputation can be salvaged at this point... most people have already decided on the PS4, and will be leary of signing up since you're just a firmware update away from returning to putting 'em over a barrel."
This made me lol. It's as if you actually believe Sony can't and wouldn't do exactly the same.
Are you really that naive? really?
"Advocates for Assange understand everything except why he should be treated the same as the vast majority of people that go before the Swedish legal system."
So there we have it, you're saying it's about "advocates of Assange", this has the implication that you're the counter to that because if you're painting it as black and white, you're either an advocate for Assange or you're not, then you must be the counter.
In admitting that you view this in black and white and that you're anti-Assange you're demonstrating why you can't think clearly on this, why you can't see that it's more than that.
There's a fundamental and simple reason why he shouldn't be treated the same as everyone else and that's simply because he's not the same as everyone else. Everyone else doesn't have a secret court in the US running test trials against him, everyone else doesn't have US politicians suggesting he should be assassinated, everyone else isn't wanted by a state with a track record of extraordinary rendition and throwing national norms out the window. Everyone else hasn't faced extradition for mere questioning. One can't simply pretend that Assange hasn't done something perfectly legal but that America still desperately wants to get hold of him for, you can't just pretend that doesn't exist. You can't pretend there aren't oddities about the whole case, there are, that's why Ecuador saw it valid to grant him asylum.
If you can't see why there is something special about this case then there's no point continuing this conversation as you have far too black and white a view of the world turning it into an "Advocates for Assange" against "Haters of Assange" petty fanboy battle.
I don't misunderstand it but I think you must've completely ignored what I said.
I said it doesn't matter if there are differences, the differences aren't so great that Sweden can't question him in the UK, in the Ecuadorian embassy before pressing charges, because as the Ecuadorian FM said at the time, they've done exactly this before. What's so hard to understand about that? It's a made up excuse that they can't question him here, there's no merit to it, they've done it before.
Right and that's fine, but what's to stop them questioning him still in the embassy to get to that point?
They have a perfectly trivial cheap and easy option to strengthen their case but for some obscure reason they want to avoid it.
The most likely reason they want to avoid it is because they know their case has no merit and what they're really actually interested in is just getting him to Sweden where they have also refused to give a guarantee that they wont send him on to the US with or without Britain's blessing.
If I was the Swedish authorities, and I genuinely believed in my case and that he genuinely needed to be brought to justice for rape, I'd do what needed to be done to prove my case and get him to face justice. I wouldn't go out my way to avoid making him face justice by refusing to question him on neutral territory and refusing to explicitly delink his trip to Sweden with potential onwards extradition to the US by at least giving a guarantee he would be returned to Britain or somewhere else and a re-extradition attempt would be made to pass him on to the US if the US put a request forward.
If Assange is guilty of rape I have absolutely no problem with him facing justice, but the Swedish authorities must understand his suspicions and those shared by Ecuador and many millions of other people in the world. They must accept that to get him to face justice over the rape allegations that he must be protected from arbitrary extradition to the US given that he has broken no law in US territory.
It's not that I'm an Assange fanboy but I am a justice fanboy and serious attempts at seeking justice just aren't being sought here - again it'd cost nothing and take so little effort to just question him in the Ecuadorian embassy, why not just do it to strengthen their case? why so desperately attempt to avoid that?
This excuse has come up before but it was debunked when Assange was granted asylum as the Ecuadorian authorities explicitly addressed it pointing out that the excuse is invalid given that Sweden has done exactly what they are requesting in other cases in the past.
In other words it's a made up excuse by his detractors that has no actual basis in reality. If they've done it in the past they can do it in this case.
Yes I would.
Unless there's clear evidence of actual intent rather than just a throwaway statement then it should be treat as just that, a throwaway statement.
He's not wanted on allegations of sexual assault either, he's wanted for questioning over allegations of sexual assault. There's a subtle but distinct difference in that there still isn't enough evidence backing those allegations to go ahead with actual charges to try him over the allegations.
I'm not sure that a lot of those things are really static typing overhead, for example even in some dynamic languages you still have to type var.
A lot of the things you mention are more related to OOP than specifically a result of static vs. dynamic typing, for example most dynamic languages still have interfaces. Take point 7 also for example - C++ doesn't require a mandatory class container for static methods, constants and globals, this is entirely a language specific thing.