If you look at redplanetlabs github repo, there's a ton of low level manipulation of 'JVM bytecode assembly language', e.g. https://github.com/redplanetlabs/defexception/blob/master/sr..., for projects that aren't even compilers, one would assume their "compiler" does this even more so.
The founder has released successful large projects in the past, e.g. Apache Storm used by Alibaba, Yahoo, Twitter, etc. Probably just need to wait a bit longer.
You can write 'type signatures' easily in clojure code, there's dozens of options, they're just only checked at runtime (and usually relegated to developer builds). if you combine that with good code coverage, it stops being a weakness and starts being a strength, because you declare data types with far more specificity & precision than a static type system.
As rich likes to say, the type signature of your stereotypical statically typed language, e.g. reverse :: [a] -> [a], doesn't have a much information content.
I write clojure, and still 'think in types' & category theory.
I like Salvia the most (not for the faint hearted) partly because of how unusual/odd experience it is it doesn't imprint me a bunch of spiritual beliefs afterwards. I feel like I learn more about the mechanism of perception from it; albeit in an uncomfortable way.
Isn't tesla's competitive advantage that they don't buy their batteries from the current supply chains? Even the total world's supply of lithium ion batteries wouldn't be enough to provide for model 3 program.
Yes, I think those are all valid points/weaknesses. While I don't personal struggle with understanding the internals of git or om.next the learning curve is no joke. The community is aware of this, but it's still alpha software they're working on it.
I actually think of om.next more like a library than a web framework. As a library it has many degrees of freedom in how it can be composed and i imagine the author prioritized flexibility/generality over concreteness, and a lot of work is still left up to the user in filling in the blanks of a full fledge web app, untangled (https://untangled-web.github.io/untangled/) is one project tries to fill in all the missing gaps and expose a framework API, much better documentation, more concrete than om.next.
Om.next shows it's strength when you're working on a complex application 5k+ lines of code. A core abstractions of om.next (and graphQL) is to express data dependencies of your react classes in a query language (e.g. component X depends on data title, author, created, updated), then the logic around how to fetch data, refresh data, cache data or access cached data, update data, deduplicate data when it's needed in many places, optimistically update client-side data and wait for server-side data to synchronize is all disentangled from the logic on rendering complete data, missing data, data being loaded, reacting to user events, etc. In a smaller code base expressing these data dependencies would just seem tedious (writing graphQL or query expressions), but it pays up big time in larger applications.
I hadn't heard of VoltDB until now, but have been following jepsen for a while. I wish more project did what you did. Congrats on the increased reliability.
"My hypothesis is that I procrastinate on those things that I was naturally good at during childhood" Yup exactly, because there's an intense emotional connection to those activities, so we avoid them sometimes since they produce feelings of vulnerability.
"This library also supports distributed, durable, observable collections (Map, List, Set)" "It uses almost no heap, trivial GC impact, can be much larger than your physical memory size (only limited by the size of your disk) and can be shared between processes with better than 1/10th latency of using Sockets over loopback."
If you have a passion for something, you'll want to spend every waking hour on it.
I miss the days of childhood though where I could build what I want on a whim, at large companies you don't always get to build what you want to during the times of the day they pay you.
I think this is particularly true if you want to ever become CEO or VP of a much larger company. How else do you prove you're fit to lead a company or division except by a start-up betting it's future on you. I don't know what the stats are but I've seen a lot of higher ups come from start-ups (in particular acquisitions) as oppose to people slowly getting promoted and climbing the corporate ladder.