Steve Yegge posted the transcript from a talk on dynamic languages that he gave at Stanford. Cedric Beust posted a response to Steve's talk, espousing statically-typed languages. Numerous comments and flamewars erupted, not to mention a Star Wars analogy (which always makes things more fun). This is my feeble attempt to play galactic peacemaker. Or at least galactic color commentary and play-by-play. I have no doubts about its efficacy, and that it will only fan the flames, for that's how these things work.
Steve Vinoski thinks to deflate my arguments with suppositions and presumptions, which I cannot simply let stand. (Sorry, Steve-O, but I think you're out in left field on this one. I'm happy to argue it further with you over beer, but if you want the last word, have at it, and we'll compare scores when we run into each other at the next conference.) Steve first takes aim at my comparison of the Erlang process model to the *nix process model: First, Ted says: Erlang’s reliability model–that is, the spawn-a-thousand-processes model–is not unique to Erlang.
“OMG, my BFF is so l33t.” “ROFLOL.” There’s a generation that looks at the above and rolls their eyes at this, but as it turns out, this is hardly new; in fact, according to Rick Beyer, author of The Greatest Presidential Stories Never Told, we get the phrase “OK” from exactly the same process: People all over the world know what “O.K.” means. But few of them realize it was born fro a wordplay craze and a presidential election.
Recently, a former student asked me, I was in a .NET web services training class that you gave probably 4 or so years ago on-site at a [company name] office in [city], north of Atlanta. At that time I asked you for a list of the technical blogs that you read, and I am curious which blogs you are reading now. I am now with a small company where I have to be a jack of all trades, in the last year I have worked in C++ and Perl backend type projects and web frontend projects with Java, C#, and RoR, so I find your perspective interesting since you also work with various technologies and aren't a zealot for a specific one.
Not too long ago, Don wrote: The three most “personal” choices a developer makes are language, tool, and OS. No. That may be true for somebody who works for a large commercial or open source vendor, whose team is building something that fits into one of those three categories and wants to see that language/tool/OS succeed. That is not where most of us live. If you do, certainly, you are welcome to your opinion, but please accept with good grace that your agenda is not the same as my own.
A couple of folks have taken me to task over some of the things I said... or didn't say... in my last blog piece. So, in no particular order, let's discuss. A few commented on how I left out commentary on language X, Y or Z. That wasn't an accidental slip or surge of forgetfulness, but I didn't want to rattle off a laundry list of every language I've run across or am exploring, since that list would be much, much longer and arguably of little to no additional benefit.
This just recently crossed my Inbox, this time from Redmond Developer News, and once again I'm simply amazed at the audacity of the message and rather far-fetched conclusion: FEEDBACK: THE MOVE FROM J2EE On Tuesday, I wrote about BMC's new Application Problem Resolution System 7.0 tooling, which provides "black box" monitoring and analysis of application behavior to help improve troubleshooting. http://reddevnews.com/blogs/weblog.aspx?blog=2146 In talking to BMC Director Ran Gishri, I ran across some interesting perspectives that he was able to offer on the enterprise development space.
So I see, via the blogosphere, that a Java 6 update is available for the Mac, so I run off to the Apple website to download the package. Click on the link, and I'm happy. Wait.... It's for 64-bit Intel Macs only?!? Apple, why do you tease me this way? Why is it that you can build it for 64-bit machines, but not 32-bit? This just seems entirely spurious and artificial.
Recently, it has become the fad to weigh in on the Groovy vs JRuby debate, usually along the lines of "Which is X?", where X is one of "better", "faster", "more powerful", "more acceptable", "easier", and so on. (Everybody seems to have their own adjective/adverb to slide in there, so I won't even begin to try to list them all.) Rick Hightower, in a blog post from January, weighs in on this and comes down harshly on both Scala and JRuby.
This email recently crossed my Inbox, and it just completely typifies everything I find wrong with the ESB: Title: "Architect Complex Integration with ESB's" Body: F1000 Keys and Barriers to ESB Success [Event] Event: [Name struck to protect the guilty] Date: [struck] Times: [struck] Place: Online No-Charge Conference Gartner reports these 2 facts: 1) F1000 firms increasingly see the Enterprise Service Bus as a “core component” in their multi-million-dollar Service-Oriented infrastructure investments.