On Thursday, 18 December 2014 at 01:16:38 UTC, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 12:37:43AM +0000, via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> Regular HD I/O is quite slow, but with fast SSD on PCIe and a good
>> database-like index locked to memory…
>
> That's hardly a solution that will work for the general D user, many of
> whom may not have this specific setup.

By the time this would be ready, most programmers will have PCIe interfaced SSD. At 100.000 IOPS it is pretty ok.

On Wednesday, 17 December 2014 at 22:24:09 UTC, Sean Kelly wrote:
> On Wednesday, 17 December 2014 at 17:09:34 UTC, Andrei
> Alexandrescu wrote:
>> On 12/4/14 6:39 PM, deadalnix wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 4 December 2014 at 13:48:04 UTC, Russel Winder via
>>> Digitalmars-d wrote:
>>>> It's an argument for Java over Python specifically but a bit more
>>>> general in reality. This stood out for me:
>>>>
>>>> !…other languages like D and Go are too new to bet my work on."
>>>>
>>>> http://www.teamten.com/lawrence/writings/java-for-everything.html
>>>
>>> Also relevant:
>>> http://wiki.jetbrains.net/intellij/Developing_and_running_a_Java_EE_Hello_World_application
>>
>> Very interesting. Even after all IDE details are factored out, the code is quite convoluted. No wonder Ruby on Rails and friends are so attractive by comparison. -- Andrei
>
> Hah.  I tried RoR once.  I couldn't get the environment set up
> and running and eventually just gave up.


After learning what RoR was about, I lost my interest.

I had been there once back in the early .COM days in a startup that did, lets call it, TCL on Rails. It was inspired by AOLserver for those who remember it.

Eventually scaling problems made us consider other options, then since we were in a position to have access to early versions of .NET, the decision was made to adopt it.

Almost everything that RoR 1.0 was doing, our TCL framework did as well. Specially the whole ActiveRecord thing.

We just weren't famous.

--
Paulo

On Thu, 18 Dec 2014 08:17:47 +0000
Paulo  Pinto via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:

> On Wednesday, 17 December 2014 at 22:24:09 UTC, Sean Kelly wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 17 December 2014 at 17:09:34 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> >> On 12/4/14 6:39 PM, deadalnix wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, 4 December 2014 at 13:48:04 UTC, Russel Winder
> >>> via
> >>> Digitalmars-d wrote:
> >>>> It's an argument for Java over Python specifically but a bit
> >>>> more
> >>>> general in reality. This stood out for me:
> >>>>
> >>>> !…other languages like D and Go are too new to bet my work on."
> >>>>
> >>>> http://www.teamten.com/lawrence/writings/java-for-everything.html
> >>>
> >>> Also relevant: http://wiki.jetbrains.net/intellij/Developing_and_running_a_Java_EE_Hello_World_application
> >>
> >> Very interesting. Even after all IDE details are factored out, the code is quite convoluted. No wonder Ruby on Rails and friends are so attractive by comparison. -- Andrei
> >
> > Hah.  I tried RoR once.  I couldn't get the environment set up and running and eventually just gave up.
> 
> 
> After learning what RoR was about, I lost my interest.
> 
> I had been there once back in the early .COM days in a startup that did, lets call it, TCL on Rails. It was inspired by AOLserver for those who remember it.
> 
> Eventually scaling problems made us consider other options, then since we were in a position to have access to early versions of .NET, the decision was made to adopt it.
> 
> Almost everything that RoR 1.0 was doing, our TCL framework did as well. Specially the whole ActiveRecord thing.
> 
> We just weren't famous.

no, you just didn't chose the language that alot of hipsters like.

p.s. Tcl is nice. it's LISP told without brackets. ;-)

On Thu, 18 Dec 2014 08:09:08 +0000
via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, 18 December 2014 at 01:16:38 UTC, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 12:37:43AM +0000, via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> >> Regular HD I/O is quite slow, but with fast SSD on PCIe and a
> >> good
> >> database-like index locked to memory…
> >
> > That's hardly a solution that will work for the general D user,
> > many of
> > whom may not have this specific setup.
> 
> By the time this would be ready, most programmers will have PCIe interfaced SSD. At 100.000 IOPS it is pretty ok.

didn't i say that the whole "64-bit" hype sux? ;-) that's about "memory as database".

On 2014-12-17 23:24, Sean Kelly wrote:

> Hah.  I tried RoR once.  I couldn't get the environment set up
> and running and eventually just gave up.

I don't know when you tried it last time, but today it's very easy to install:

1. Make sure Ruby is installed
2. $ gem install rails
3. $ rails new foo
4. $ cd foo
5. $ bundle
6. $ rails s

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On Thursday, 18 December 2014 at 08:56:29 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> didn't i say that the whole "64-bit" hype sux? ;-) that's about "memory as database".

Did you? :-)  Regular HDD is at 100 IOPS, so I think reading 100K random pages per second would work out fine. PCIe is going mainstream next year or so according to anantech, if I got that right. (There are solutions that do 1000K+ IOPS)

On Thu, 18 Dec 2014 09:37:35 +0000
via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, 18 December 2014 at 08:56:29 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> > didn't i say that the whole "64-bit" hype sux? ;-) that's about "memory as database".
> 
> Did you? :-)  Regular HDD is at 100 IOPS, so I think reading 100K random pages per second would work out fine. PCIe is going mainstream next year or so according to anantech, if I got that right. (There are solutions that do 1000K+ IOPS)

i'm about "hey, we are out of address space!" issues. ok, ok, *i'm* out of address space. ;-)

On 12/6/14 7:26 AM, Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> Primitive types are scheduled for removal, leaving only reference
> types.

Wow, that's a biggie. Link(s)? -- Andrei

On Sat, 2014-12-20 at 15:16 -0800, Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On 12/6/14 7:26 AM, Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> > Primitive types are scheduled for removal, leaving only reference types.
> 
> Wow, that's a biggie. Link(s)? -- Andrei

Simon Ritter laid out the OpenJDK/JCP/Oracle thinking way back in 2011 in a number of conference presentations. cf. http://www.slideshare.net/JAX_London/keynote-to-java-se-8-and-beyond-simon-ritter page 41 has the explicit statement of goal for JDK10. OK so this was pre-JDK8 and reality has changed a bit from his predictions, but not yet on this issue.

There are changes to the JIT for JDK9 and JDK10 that are precursors to removing primitive types, so as to get rid of the last unnecessary boxing and unboxing during function evaluation. Expression evaluation is already handled well with no unnecessary (un)boxing.

Many see "value types" cf JEP 169 http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/169 as a necessary precursor, but it is not exactly clear that this is actually the case. It's a question of which JIT is part of the standard reference implementation (OpenJDK) and what suppliers (e.g. Oracle, IBM, Azul, etc.) ship in their distributions.

Although the vast majority of Java is used in a basically I/O bound context, there is knowledge of and desire to improve Java in a CPU- bound context. The goal here is to always be as fast as C and C++ for all CPU-bound codes. A lot of people are already seeing Java being faster than C and C++, but they have to use primitive types to achieve this. With the shift to internal iteration and new JITS, the aim is to achieve even better but using reference types in the code.

There are an increasing number of people from Oracle, IBM and Azul actively working on this, so it is a well-funded activity. Targeting JDK10 means they have 2 years left to get it right :-)

-- 
Russel. ============================================================================= Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder@ekiga.net 41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: russel@winder.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder

On Thursday, 18 December 2014 at 09:20:27 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2014-12-17 23:24, Sean Kelly wrote:
>
>> Hah.  I tried RoR once.  I couldn't get the environment set up
>> and running and eventually just gave up.
>
> I don't know when you tried it last time, but today it's very easy to install:
>
> 1. Make sure Ruby is installed
> 2. $ gem install rails
> 3. $ rails new foo
> 4. $ cd foo
> 5. $ bundle
> 6. $ rails s

I was following the original RoR book.  I got bogged down in setting up the DB and wiring everything together.