Almost 20 years ago I helped our company choose between Git and Mercurial as the replacement for Subversion. Unfortunately, I helped them make the wrong choice, Mercurial.
I say wrong because clearly Git won the war and I haven't used Mercurial since then. However, I still think I made the right choice from a technical perspective; I thought Mercurial was way more user-friendly while providing all the features and performance needed. But I guess I couldn't read the future in terms of which one would win out!
My experience profiling is that I/O wait is never the problem. However, the app may actually be spending most of it's CPU time interacting with database. In general, networks have gotten so fast relative to CPU that the CPU cost of marshalling or serializing data across a protocol ends up being the limiting factor. I got a major speedup once just by updating the JSON serialization library an app used.
It takes an incredible lack of awareness or intellectual honesty to hold Fox news to this standard, but not CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, and ABC, or, if we include print media, the NYT, the Washington Post, the Guardian, Reuters, AP, Axios, LA Times, and the Atlantic.
It sounds to me like you're just nitpicking his words. I can't find this quote anywhere, but he's probably saying Wikipedia is taking "stances", to use your word, on subjects where it should instead be trying harder to be neutral and provide multiple perspectives in a balanced manner. Sincerely trying to understand and convey the perspectives of two opposing sides looks vastly different from taking one side, amplifying their talking points, and suppressing or refuting those of the other side.
The counter-arguments to all this all tend to boil down to some form of condescending tone or moralizing:
* left-leaning is just reality-leaning. LoLoLoL right-wingers are sooo stupid!
* Wikipedia should take the left-leaning stance because it is good, moral, noble, and righteous, while the right-leaning stance is vile, evil, unconscionable, and despicable.
If either of those thoughts cross your mind, then, congratulations, you are left-biased. You should try your hand at Wikipedia article editing. I'm sure they'll love you.
You're not trying very hard to see a side that's different from yours, are you? You are responding to a comment saying "leftist != realistic", yet you seem to be pretending my intent was to say "here's proof Wikipedia is left-leaning." Neither of my links were given to "prove" bias, either, only to show that accusations of leftwing bias are accusations that Wikipedia is valuing propaganda over truth and objectivity.
Anyways, to get off-topic from my original comment, here's some evidence for you to ignore:
I think it was always a mistake to pretend hyperthreading doubles your core count. I always assumed it was just due to laziness; the operating system treats a hyperthreaded core as two "virtual cores" and schedules as two cores, so then every other piece of tooling sees double the number of actual cores. There's no good reason I know of that a CPU utilization tool shouldn't use real cores when calculating percentages. But, maybe that's hard to do given how the OS implements hyperthreading.
.NET perf can be great in the sense that it provides more tools to write C-like code while still taking advantage of safe memory management, as compared to Java. On the downside, both their JIT and their GC seem to be far less sophisticated than the JVM.
Why, for instance, does the CLR GC not have something like TLABs? The result is that it seems like .NET devs have to worry a lot more about the expense of small, short-lived allocations, while in Java these things are much cheaper.
Overall, I think it's easier to program idiomatically in Java and get decent performance out-of-the-box, while C# may provide more opportunities for optimization without having to rely on something equivalent to sun.misc.Unsafe and offheap allocations.
I have no problem with you preferring .NET to Java, and I apologize that my first-cited article was not the best one to share to describe the problem (I should have read it more carefully first), but if you had responded with something like:
"Your deadlock scenario is related to synchronization contexts and can be avoided by ..."
rather than:
"You clearly don't know what you're talking about (but I won't bother telling you why)"
Then we could have had a much more productive and pleasant conversation. I would have responded with:
"Sorry, that article wasn't the right one to share. Here is a better one. The issue I am talking about isn't synchronization context-related at all. It's actually much more insidious."
> For example, starting with .NET 6 there is a pure C# threadpool implementation that acts differently under problematic scenarios.
We're seeing this issue entirely in .NET core. We started on .NET 6, are currently on .NET 8, and will likely migrate to 10 soon after it is released. It's again worth mentioning that you provide zero evidence that .NET 6 solves this problem in any way. Although, as we will see below, it seems like you don't even understand the problem!
> I'm certain you're basing this off of your personal experience from more than a decade ago of some forsaken codebase written in an especially sloppy way.
No, I'm referring to code written recently, at the job I work at now, at which I've been involved in discussions about, and implementations of, workarounds for the issue.
> Moreover, there isn't a single mention that the real way to get into actual deadlock situation is when dealing with applications enriched with synchronization context.
100% false. This deadlock issue has nothing to do with synchronization contexts. Please actually read the 2020 article I linked as it explains the issue much better.
> Pathetic attempt at strawman.
I realize responding to this is to just fight pettiness with more pettiness, but I can't resist. You should probably look up the definition of a strawman argument since you are using the word incorrectly.
That's a very harsh reply with zero evidence behind it. Based on your response, I am willing to bet I understand the platform better than you do. And the deadlocks I'm referring to are happening in apps written by other people who've been in the .NET ecosystem exclusively for more than a decade, or even two decades.
But does citing a more-recent article matter to you? Probably not. A source being 13 years old only matters if something relevant has changed since then, and you certainly couldn't be bothered to point out any relevant change to support your otherwise fallacious and misleading comment.
What actually amazes me most about this is that people in .NET seem to want to blame the person writing sync-over-async code like they are doing something wrong, even going so far as to call it an "anti-pattern", when in reality it is the fault of poor decision-making from the .NET team to fold work-stealing into the global thread queue. The red-blue function coloring problem is real, and you can't make it go away by pretending everyone can just rewrite all their existing synchronous code and no other solution is needed.
If all you know is one ecosystem, then it seems you are susceptible to a form of Stockholm syndrome when that ecosystem abuses you.
I've been working in .NET/C# for the past few years, and while I'm happy with it, I still think the JVM/Java are the best ecosystem overall I've worked in. It's amazing how many things the Java ecosystem gets right that .NET gets wrong.
For instance, Java introduced the fork/join pool for work stealing and recommended it for short-lived tasks that decomposed into smaller tasks. .NET decided to simply add work-stealing to their global thread pool. The result: sync-over-async code, which is the only way to fold an asynchronous library into a synchronous codebase, frequently results in whole-application deadlocks on .NET, and this issue is well-documented: https://blog.stephencleary.com/2012/07/dont-block-on-async-c...
Notice the solution in this blog is "convert all your sync code to async", which can be infeasible for a large existing codebase.
There are so many other cases like this that I run into. While there have been many mistakes in the Java ecosystem they've mostly been in the library/framework level so it's easier to move on when people finally realize the dead end. However, when you mess up in the standard library, the runtime, or language, it's very hard to fix, and Java seems to have gotten it more right here than anywhere else.
I don't know what the "right" answer is, but I worked at a company that built a fairly unwieldy monolith that was dragging everyone down as it matured into a mid-sized company. And, once you're successfully used at scale it becomes much more difficult to make architectural changes. Is there a middle ground? Is there a way to build a monolith while making it easier to factor apart services earlier rather than later? I don't know, and I don't think the article addresses that either.
The article does mention "invest in modularity", but to be honest, if you're in frantic startup mode dumping code into a monolith, you're probably not caring about modularity either.
Lastly, I would imagine it's easier to start with microservices, or multiple mid-sized services if you're relying on advanced cloud infra like AWS, but that has its own costs and downsides.
> An argument, though, is an exchange of ideas that ought to surface insight and lead to a conclusion.
That's one definition, I suppose, but it's not the definition you'll find in any dictionary I've seen. The author here seems to be assuming that the only valid reason to argue is to learn. People argue for many reasons other than that.
> If you’re regularly having arguments with well-informed people of goodwill, you will probably ‘lose’ half of them–changing your mind based on what you’ve learned
Again, the author's unspoken presupposition begs to be questioned. Why do most people actually argue in the public sphere? For instance, why do we have presidential debates? The candidates certainly aren't there to learn. They are not even trying to persuade their debate partner. They are arguing to convince or persuade their viewers of something. These could be undecided viewers, or they could be viewers who have already made up their mind but may either feel strengthened about their beliefs or weakened after listening.
Similarly, if I'm debating someone online, it's often less to convince that person and more to convince anyone else who might be reading. I have heard of people in real life who have read debates I've engaged in and expressed both gratitude for my willingness to do so and that they were strengthened in their beliefs on the subject.
> Ah, so now you're just pivoting to "left-leaning means untrue/ propaganda".
No, I said far-left goes hand-in-hand with being ant-Israel. Do you know what words mean? I actually do think the far-left is wrong about just about everything, but they do often mix falsehoods with things that are true, so of course not everything they say is untrue.
> And since you just ignored BI and GSSR, I assume you don't have anything to counter that.
No, I'm just not going to take the time to address every article in particular, which you have no room to complain about, given you completely ignored every article I linked.
Looking at the BI article, for instance, they talk about "proportionality", which is a completely bogus and corrupt idea of warfare. You don't fight to respond proportionality; you fight to win and to win decisively. I have no interest in kowtowing to morally bankrupt leftwing morality.
> In the end, you're nothing but a propagandist pushing pro-Israel narratives through opinion pieces and actual propaganda sites like Daily Wire.
Every pro-Hamas rally is filled with people who hate America and the west. I know I am on the side of good and you are on the side of depraved evil, and I will fight to defend what is right.
> and publicly discussed removing all Palestinians from Gaza (ethnic cleansing)
There has to be intent to make the area homogenous. The people of Gaza voted in Hamas and have been working to destroy Israel ever since. It is well within Israel's right to remove them, and I fully support them if it comes to that.
> Look at the comments here if you doubt that people have wisened up.
I actually I saw other comments, that were not downvoted, of people explaining how HRW is biased and conflicted. And, HN has always been deeply-left leaning. I'm happy to trade away some karma to speak the truth to people like you.
And, what are the point of your links? Isarel accidentally kills civilians, which is virtually unavoidable in urban warfare. Hamas hides behind civilians in order to increase civilian casualties because they know the far left news will report on it to their favor. And, they purposely kill Israeli civilians because they are terrorists. One side is pure evil. The other is doing better than just about every nation in the world in fighting a just war.
No. I'm saying what you call "factual reporting" is inaccurate and dishonest propaganda. And the "opinion pieces" I'm sharing are all based on facts and realities.
If any source is deserving of a comparison to InfoWars here it's HRW itself. You can't unilaterally smear every right-of-center source as completely untrustworthy and expect to stay on the side of reality for long.
I say wrong because clearly Git won the war and I haven't used Mercurial since then. However, I still think I made the right choice from a technical perspective; I thought Mercurial was way more user-friendly while providing all the features and performance needed. But I guess I couldn't read the future in terms of which one would win out!