On my 15-inch MacBook, I have a full-screen terminal running tmux, split down the middle with Vim in the left pane and a shell in the right pane. At the smallest font size I can stand in decent lighting, I can get 88 columns in the left pane. Usually I want the font larger.
This is really murky to me. As a professional, I keep notes as I learn things which may or may not relate to my current employment. The notes are my property and part of my knowledge base that I bring to any job. But I suppose I indirectly receive compensation for knowing things, so I need a commercial license?
Or what if I start taking notes on some random subject for fun, and eventually I write and sell a book based on them? All of a sudden I need to start paying a yearly fee?
It's not a prohibitive amount of money, but I'd be much happier with paying a one-time fee for the current version, then buying future versions if I choose to.
> I work at a large tech company on a young team (average age is late twenties). In my experience many don't view working from home regularly as a benefit. I understand that must change drastically when you're middle aged
Yes, and there is some correlation between age and seniority. If companies are so eager to hire senior developers, they might consider the preferences of candidates who have been working long enough to fit that description.
> Hiring is more difficult. It's not that you can't find applicants, but the people capable of performing without direct supervision is (mostly) a subset of those capable of performing in an office.
OTOH, your applicant pool is limited only to the time zones and legal jurisdictions you're willing to hire from. If you're office-based, it's limited to those who can reasonably commute there.
> That's the same risk you have with any open source project.
Yes and no. The larger the number of dependencies you have, and the larger number of maintainers that are behind them, the more chances you have of one of them containing malicious code.
I think you're pretty safe from Phoenix or Rails or NodeJS getting owned because so many people work on them. But one of the thousand small packages you use may belong to someone careless or malicious.
The common retort from SPA devs is "what about offline?" Since LiveView keeps state on the server, it doesn't really work offline.
However, 1) you can add custom JS using LiveView's hooks, which might be enough for very simple offline behavior and 2) many SPAs don't work offline either.
If offline support is a major part of your app's design, LiveView isn't a good fit. But you could still use Phoenix Channels (the building block underneath LiveView) to provide fast push updates to your client. See the channels docs for an idea of how they work - https://hexdocs.pm/phoenix/channels.html
> The only modern web problem that Elixir isn't ideally suited for is heavy number crunching.
I would caveat that in a couple of ways.
First, suppose you have a web app where some requests involve heavy number crunching and others don't. In web frameworks where 1 request ties up 1 OS thread, a burst of heavy requests could gobble up all your available connections. Phoenix would use one cheap BEAM process per request, and the BEAM's preemptive scheduler would ensure that other requests are answered in a timely way and that all the heavy ones continue to make steady progress. So although the heavy requests might be completed more slowly than in another language, the overall system would remain more responsive.
I like to say that the BEAM's preemptive scheduling provides non-blocking IO AND non-blocking computation.
To expand on your workload description: things like waiting for a database query or an API result are smoothly handled in this paradigm; the process goes to sleep for a bit whle another request is processed.
If your workflow is like a delivery truck which makes a lot of stops, "faster trucks" doesn't help much with throughput. "More trucks" is better.
Another consideration: Phoenix PubSub makes it simple and performant to add more servers. So if one (say) chat app server can provide acceptable performance for N users, you can serve N more users by adding another node.
Imagine this: you set your browser to download only the first N bytes of each image, showing you a decent preview. If you want more detail on a particular image, you tap it, and the browser requests the next N bytes (or the rest of the file, if you prefer).
And to enable this, the site only needed to create one high-resolution image.
Seems like a victory for loading speeds, for low-bandwidth, and for content creation.
80 seems good to me.