If there was only a good Ruby in browser implementation, I'd be more than happy to go Ruby everywhere.
New Rails with turbo streams is great, but often times it's desirable to do data processing on the client, and then getting back to JS feels like a step down.
- DSL for UI (Forms)
- fast native compiler that produced self sufficient binaries
- great component library and many open source libraries
- Object Pascal was extended to fit perfectly the needs of UI programming
It's good that the banks can be bailed out. It's good there's some inflation. It saves capitalism from itself (the rich acummulating all or practically all the coins).
Chrome does this for a long time now and I don't consider it an issue. You see a frozen version of the last decoded keyframe until the next one is decoded. Elegant solution IMO.
> As someone who is working with X11, I strongly disagree. It really needs replacing badly. It doesn't even work; only a few code paths even get tested on for example GLX, which is why complex X11 apps like browsers need blacklists.
Blacklists are needed because OpenGL drivers for specific hardware have bugs and can have missing functionality. Those can affect Wayland too, since the same drivers are used.
Modern Xorg supports direct rendering well, Keith Packard authored a lot of modernized infrastructure such as DRI2/DRI3, and even support for VR (work he's been doing for Valve).
There's also the important VK_display_timing extension implementation he's done with Croateams Alen Ladavac:
Sadly, I don't see much more recent activity from him or Alen about these topics, but it shows that Xorg is still the main platform of inovation for Linux real-time graphics needs.
You must be doing something wrong. There's a lot of overhead for frameworks like Symfony, yes. But it's possible to write reasonably productive and modern website code where you can get sub 20ms responses (doing auth, fetching from db, processing and rendering html). I know because I've done that, on PHP 5.4.
A mid sized web site with 5000RPM would be 219 million of requests per month: so 766 USD/month just for API GW, without data transfer, lambda, static/cdn or DB costs.
Most of these articles I read about AWS Lambda (they rarely mention API Gatweway because it's expensive) sound like paid marketing.
I've seen just API Gateway costing more than entire infrastructure costs of similarly sized websites.
If you can properly saturate EC2 it will be significantly less expensive than Lambda but with lambda you have to pay API GW and the vendor lock-in price.