4 ms·

Erlang, Go and Rust are completely meaningless languages because they cannot share memory efficiently, ie. they cannot operate one-to-many, many-to-one or many-

by bullen 6y ago

Erlang, Go and Rust are completely meaningless languages because they cannot share memory efficiently, ie. they cannot operate one-to-many, many-to-one or many-to-many efficiently. So I value your arguments about "people have researched this" like I do with all people that don't get their hands dirty and prove things practically first, because obviously you have not. I use real data from the real world, you should try it, you might invent something. But yes my system relies on being connected to one node at the time like you said previously.

lostcolony 6y ago
Barely going to touch those language claims; I've written production systems in two of those, and Java, your preferred stack. They all can share memory efficiently between units of concurrency; this just seems like another example of you claiming your own limited knowledge as being truth. In terms of building real world systems - oh, but I have. Over a decade of building distributed systems, across 5 different companies. In domains that cared about correctness. You have a data point; a weak one. "This worked for me". Which I'm not arguing against (well, I'm nuancing it a bit; it worked sufficiently well to not cause business issue, which is a different metric than system correctness, but somewhat immaterial). What I'm arguing against is your claim that "This will work for everyone" and "everything else is too complicated". Which you've been unable to refute. In fact, you've been unable to even provide evidence for your own position (beyond the aforementioned "it worked for me"), let alone the counter claim.
- bullen 6y ago
  My preferred stack is Java for server side, but C for the client. All other languages are completely flawed in too many ways that any sane person would choose to use them other than by mistake. I have given you the source of a 2000 line distributed database that out-scales all other databases for 80% of their uses, and all you did was to down vote me. I'm just saying "here is what I learned", you have thought me nothing.

by bullen 6y ago

lostcolony 6y ago

Barely going to touch those language claims; I've written production systems in two of those, and Java, your preferred stack. They all can share memory efficiently between units of concurrency; this just seems like another example of you claiming your own limited knowledge as being truth. In terms of building real world systems - oh, but I have. Over a decade of building distributed systems, across 5 different companies. In domains that cared about correctness. You have a data point; a weak one. "This worked for me". Which I'm not arguing against (well, I'm nuancing it a bit; it worked sufficiently well to not cause business issue, which is a different metric than system correctness, but somewhat immaterial). What I'm arguing against is your claim that "This will work for everyone" and "everything else is too complicated". Which you've been unable to refute. In fact, you've been unable to even provide evidence for your own position (beyond the aforementioned "it worked for me"), let alone the counter claim.

bullen 6y ago
My preferred stack is Java for server side, but C for the client. All other languages are completely flawed in too many ways that any sane person would choose to use them other than by mistake. I have given you the source of a 2000 line distributed database that out-scales all other databases for 80% of their uses, and all you did was to down vote me. I'm just saying "here is what I learned", you have thought me nothing.