On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 08:56:03 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> my customers paying me for making the work done, not for experimenting and researching.

They pay you to make the work from scratch and they don't care how you do it.

> must here ;-) and mature code. this way everyone is happy, and i'm not
> blocked in trying another approach or breaking some API.

If you do it from scratch, there's no breakage. What's the reason to not do it? It looks as if you hate writing better code in your language of choice. You hate that language?

On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 09:07:23 +0000
Kagamin via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:

> On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 08:56:03 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> > my customers paying me for making the work done, not for experimenting and researching.
> 
> They pay you to make the work from scratch and they don't care how you do it.
in no way. thay paying me to build the software that solving their problems. if they can pay less and get the software faster, they are happy. and then they going to me when they need another software, 'cause they know that i'm not interested in only taking their money and deliver something that barely works, and beyond the deadline.

> > must here ;-) and mature code. this way everyone is happy, and
> > i'm not
> > blocked in trying another approach or breaking some API.
> 
> If you do it from scratch, there's no breakage. What's the reason to not do it? It looks as if you hate writing better code in your language of choice. You hate that language?
i hate rewriting the code which is already written and working. that's why i'm not starting new project with writing new compiler for it, for example. and that's why i like to reuse what i did in another projects -- to deliver a good solution in reasonable time and budget. it may be fun for me to rewrite everything again and again, but my customers aren't interested in giving me fun, they want their problems solved.

On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 07:33:21 UTC, Shammah Chancellor wrote:
> On 2014-12-04 14:12:32 +0000, Ola Fosheim Grøstad said:
>
>> I did not find that odd, they are not perceived as stable and proven. Go is still working on finding the right GC solution.
>
> There are quite a few companies using Go in production.
>
> -S.

Yes there are, but for me using Go in production means it is listed as the required language in a Request For Proposal document.

--
Paulo

On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 04:49:02AM +0200, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 02:39:49 +0000
> deadalnix via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
[...]
> > Also relevant: http://wiki.jetbrains.net/intellij/Developing_and_running_a_Java_EE_Hello_World_application
> i didn't make it past the contents. too hard for silly me.

Whoa. Thanks for the link -- I was actually at some point considering maybe to get into the Java field instead of being stuck with C/C++ at work, but after reading that page, I was completely dispelled of the notion. I think I would lose my sanity after 5 minutes of clicking through those endless submenus, typing out XML by hand (argh), and writing 50 pages of Java legalese and setting up 17 pieces of scaffolding just to get a Hello World program to run. Whoa! I think I need therapy just skimming over that page. This is sooo over-engineered it's not even funny. For all their flaws, C/C++ at least doesn't require that level of inanity...

But of course, if I could only write D at my job, that'd be a whole lot different... :-P


T

-- 
Trying to define yourself is like trying to bite your own teeth. -- Alan Watts

On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 13:14:52 UTC, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 04:49:02AM +0200, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 02:39:49 +0000
>> deadalnix via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
> [...]
>> > Also relevant:
>> > http://wiki.jetbrains.net/intellij/Developing_and_running_a_Java_EE_Hello_World_application
>> i didn't make it past the contents. too hard for silly me.
>
> Whoa. Thanks for the link -- I was actually at some point considering
> maybe to get into the Java field instead of being stuck with C/C++ at
> work, but after reading that page, I was completely dispelled of the
> notion. I think I would lose my sanity after 5 minutes of clicking
> through those endless submenus, typing out XML by hand (argh), and
> writing 50 pages of Java legalese and setting up 17 pieces of
> scaffolding just to get a Hello World program to run. Whoa! I think I
> need therapy just skimming over that page. This is sooo over-engineered
> it's not even funny. For all their flaws, C/C++ at least doesn't require
> that level of inanity...
>
> But of course, if I could only write D at my job, that'd be a whole lot
> different... :-P
>
>
> T

Modern JEE is quite different from that tutorial.

Besides you don't use JEE for HelloWorld, rather for distributed applications.

C/C++ don't provide half the tools that allow JEE to scale across the cluster and the respective monitoring infrastructure.

JEE is the evolution of distributed CORBA applications in the enterprise, with .NET enterprise applications being the evolution of DCOM.

Both games that C++ lost its place at.

--
Paulo

> JEE is the evolution of distributed CORBA applications in the enterprise, with .NET enterprise applications being the evolution of DCOM.
>
> Both games that C++ lost its place at.

What about zeromq with C++ or even resorting to simple internal REST protocols. I've yet to see a valid argument that DCOM (not sure about COBRA) offer a tangible benefit over simpler approaches. Thoughts?

On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 6:12 AM, via Digitalmars-d < digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:

>
> For speed... I dunno. In the cloud you can run Python on 10 instances with little effort,
>
>
But if a single instance suffices, why would you? Probably not a popular opinion, but we should think more about resources and power usage, even if they're "cheap". Convenience is not everything. As engineers, we have duties and responsibilities toward the community and the environment. I am not a fan at the throw-servers-at-it-until-it-works approach.

On Fri, 2014-12-05 at 05:12 -0800, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 04:49:02AM +0200, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> > On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 02:39:49 +0000
> > deadalnix via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
> [...]
> > > Also relevant: http://wiki.jetbrains.net/intellij/Developing_and_running_a_Java_EE_Hello_World_application
> > i didn't make it past the contents. too hard for silly me.
> 
> Whoa. Thanks for the link -- I was actually at some point considering maybe to get into the Java field instead of being stuck with C/C++ at work, but after reading that page, I was completely dispelled of the notion. I think I would lose my sanity after 5 minutes of clicking through those endless submenus, typing out XML by hand (argh), and writing 50 pages of Java legalese and setting up 17 pieces of scaffolding just to get a Hello World program to run. Whoa! I think I need therapy just skimming over that page. This is sooo over-engineered it's not even funny. For all their flaws, C/C++ at least doesn't require that level of inanity...
> 
> But of course, if I could only write D at my job, that'd be a whole lot different... :-P

Hopefully this all being stated in jest since anyone considering using JavaEE for a Hello World micro-service is either trying to introduce people to the JavaEE workflow for big applications or has a deep agenda, possibly involving Spring Boot or general hatred of Java.

As a counter example let us consider Ratpack where the complete Hello World micro-service (*) is coded as.

get("/") {
    "Hello, World!"
}


(*) This term is now mandatory for fashion reasons.

-- 
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 Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 07:52:24PM +0000, Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-12-05 at 05:12 -0800, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 04:49:02AM +0200, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> > > On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 02:39:49 +0000
> > > deadalnix via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > Also relevant: http://wiki.jetbrains.net/intellij/Developing_and_running_a_Java_EE_Hello_World_application
> > > i didn't make it past the contents. too hard for silly me.
> > 
> > Whoa. Thanks for the link -- I was actually at some point considering maybe to get into the Java field instead of being stuck with C/C++ at work, but after reading that page, I was completely dispelled of the notion. I think I would lose my sanity after 5 minutes of clicking through those endless submenus, typing out XML by hand (argh), and writing 50 pages of Java legalese and setting up 17 pieces of scaffolding just to get a Hello World program to run. Whoa! I think I need therapy just skimming over that page. This is sooo over-engineered it's not even funny. For all their flaws, C/C++ at least doesn't require that level of inanity...
> > 
> > But of course, if I could only write D at my job, that'd be a whole lot different... :-P
> 
> Hopefully this all being stated in jest since anyone considering using JavaEE for a Hello World micro-service is either trying to introduce people to the JavaEE workflow for big applications or has a deep agenda, possibly involving Spring Boot or general hatred of Java.

It's not so much jest as hyperbole. :-)  While I'm sure J2EE (or whatever the correct acronym is these days) has its uses, otherwise it would quickly cease to exist, it violates the principle of easy things being easy and hard things being possible. No doubt it makes hard things possible, but easy things require an incommensurate amount of effort. That, and the general tendency of Java platforms to require a whole infrastructure of external configuration files and assorted paraphrenelia makes me think twice about stepping in that direction. Surely there are less tedious ways of accomplishing the same thing!


> As a counter example let us consider Ratpack where the complete Hello World micro-service (*) is coded as.
> 
> get("/") {
>     "Hello, World!"
> }

Yes, and *that* would be what I'd call "easy things are easy, and hard things are possible". Well, I don't have direct evidence of the latter half of the statement, but I'm giving the benefit of the doubt here. :-)

On a more serious note, the fact that these alternatives to heavy-weight Java web application platforms are springing up suggests that perhaps my evaluation of J2EE (or whatever it's properly called) may not be completely off-base. No matter how much you try to alleviate the tedium by having fancy IDEs auto-generate everything for you, there's something about simplicity that attracts people. K.I.S.S., and all that. :-)


> (*) This term is now mandatory for fashion reasons.
[...]

This statement makes one suspect that perhaps there is some truth to Nick Sabalausky's hyperbole about fashion designers posing as software engineers.  ;-)


T

-- 
Once the bikeshed is up for painting, the rainbow won't suffice. -- Andrei Alexandrescu

On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 11:41:28AM -0800, Ziad Hatahet via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 6:12 AM, via Digitalmars-d < digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
> 
> >
> > For speed... I dunno. In the cloud you can run Python on 10 instances with little effort,
> >
> >
> But if a single instance suffices, why would you? Probably not a popular opinion, but we should think more about resources and power usage, even if they're "cheap". Convenience is not everything. As engineers, we have duties and responsibilities toward the community and the environment. I am not a fan at the throw-servers-at-it-until-it-works approach.

I agree. It's not just about conservation of resources and power, though. It's also about maximizing the utility of our assets and extending our reach.

If I were a business and I invested $10,000 in servers, wouldn't I want to maximize the amount of computation I can get from these servers before I need to shell out money for more servers?

There are also certain large computational problems that basically need every last drop of juice you can get in order to have any fighting chance to solve them. In such cases you'd want to get as far as possible in refining approximate (or partial) solutions before giving up. If it were up to me, I'd want to squeeze every last drop out of every last server I can ever afford to buy, since otherwise I might not be able to go as far as I could have due to too many resources being wasted on unnecessary or inefficient processes.

But apparently, in these days of economic downturn, we are still wallowing in enough cash that throwing more servers at the problem is still a viable business strategy, and not maximizing what we can get given what we have is an acceptable compromise. *shrug*


T

-- 
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. -- Donald Knuth