At least for me, webapps are just 1 in a thousand tabs open in 500 browser windows (ok, I exaggerate a bit). For an app with it's own window I can just hit a shortcut and said app gets focus.
Disclaimer, not an Elektron fan.
Many people cross the Atlantic every year in relatively (not like this) small boats every year. There are common procedures and knowledge available to people that do that, see here for example: http://www.yachtingmonthly.com/archive/arc-safety-checklist-...
Examples of gross negligence: being dismasted in low or moderate wind conditions because lack of maintenance to the rigging and/or motor failing because of lack of a fuel filtering system, departing when conditions are obviously not favorable (wind against current in the Gulf Stream off the US coast).
There is no such thing as a clear line but it can be established for each case I think.
The lazy approach is probably way cheaper. Unless the social media shit storm is too big in which case they can correct after the fact.
Not saying it is ok to do it. Just that business will always pick the cheapest option they can get away with - that is, that does not affect the bottom line.
"Knowing LinkedIn is saying "enough" is a real breather for me. At this point, I can stop. Hopefully it will trigger a chain reaction, and leave Scala for the academics."
You later speak of "hate" while justifying on the decision of one company your dismissal of a whole ecosystem. The chain reaction comment was tasteless and in no way looks like an opinion trying to make the platform better as a community.
If you don't like it, drop it.
Also FWIW in my experience with academics, most of them use Python, go figure.
-- EDIT
I don't usually reply to comments like this one but this time I could not resist. Sorry.
I would say that is because neither you nor the original authors had an idea of how things work (thread scheduling, etc).
Good for you if you rewrote it and it did solve your problems. Obviously it was not such a huge task, if it was, learning how to control those things would have been wiser.
In my experience most people won't even learn the ins and outs of the "for those who can't" languages. Worst yet, it's not about the language: most people won't grasp more important concepts that maybe "for those who can" languages force them to know upfront. And clearly while not knowing upfront some things is easier in the short term, it is a recipe for disaster as problems get more complex. So maybe it's about problems "for those who can" and "for those who can't".
My experience tends to be that distro packaged software is not always what one ends up using in production. Except for some base packages when you start doing more sophisticated deployments. Distros may backport bug fixes and specifically security fixes but they tend to be several versions behind.
Why did you have to write the same function again and again? I guess polymorphism would have helped, would it not? Not knowing too much c++ I can't really comment so I guess I am asking for a clarification.
I wrote a simulation software to test a product in my previous job which used akka mostly but also used AHC which is a plain java http client library without problems. Size-wise the code would periodically get more features but by refactoring often it never got beyond 2500~3000 LOCs. Readability was never harmed; Scala - contrary to what some people think - allows for very clear code. People that inherited the code is working on adding features. Obfuscated code can be written in PHP if you want (or are unable to do otherwise). Another piece of scala software was an internal web service written using unfiltered on jetty. It's so stable sometimes I just forget it's there.