> So based on the article's own observation: no, of course not.
This had very little to the discussion. Of course it can't be replaced. Code is created by humans, and as long as we have opinions nothing gets truly replaced. Just decreased usage over time.
> C++ and Switft just became "more dominant".
Yup, like this. Of course a general statement is no.
I have very little interest in this topic. But I seen this SAME comment a million times on anything thats new that attempts to challenge something. And as usual whether something "dethrones" something is less interesting than what changes or ideas that it offers.
Just like ALL those you listed, they didn't replace any of those, but they definitely challenged the ecosystems, or improved the old ones.
Naunce discussion is far more interesting.
For example, why do you think Carbon won't be able to gain dominance over time? I mean I think thats a huge hurdle too.
You've apparently read the reverse of what I said. I said the new thing didn't replace the old thing, and that therefore the idea that "we are doing the same, and it will replace the old thing" is nonsense. I did not say that because it can't replace it, it is therefore not worth doing. It absolutely is, like all attempts at making things that "solve the problems that C++ has" have been varying degrees of worth it. But the idea that it can, let alone will, replace the original is such an obvious "no" that the title is clickbait. Or slide-bait (since it was originally a conf. talk)
The way that company has posted blog where they seem to have complete lack of understanding what graphql is and their comments on dev.to show a huge amount of disrespect.
The blogs posts comments themselves shows the company's author of these seems dense, rude and unknowledgeable in what they argue. Which also means their product they are making is likely being made by the same mindset.
Definitely wouldn't trust them.
It seems also like a ploy to get attention, which is definitely gonna keep me away from their product.
Seriously, check out these comment section. It's like they posted about something they have no clue about and then are gonna defend it to their grave regardless if they are wrong.
Wait until some security flaw comes out and this attitude makes them unwilling to admit they are wrong. Gross.
> Even if that was true, the above is 7 lines of code. That is 3.5 times as many LOC as my 2 liner. Science shows us that the amount of resources required to maintain code is proportional to the LOC count. Your example is hence 3.5 times more demanding in both initial resources to create it and resources required to maintain it. One of OOP's sales pitches was "that it makes it easier to maintain your code". You just scientifically proved it wrong ...
I think it has to be trolling, right? I haven't seen mention of LOC as a useful metric since the oughts.
Anyone who's been in the game long enough will tell you that, outside of tight performance-critical loops, developer experience trumps everything. And you cannot reduce devX down to a single number.
> If OOP was a solution to anything really, we wouldn't need design patterns, clean architecture, or SOLID design principles.
He's not wrong. I loved moving from C to C++ polymorphic code is such a cool concept but after a while you realise it really doesn't solve anything on its own.
Then you start to encapsulate everything in an attempt to separate concerns then you realise that separation of concerns is actually quite easy if you separate data from function and make sure functions have no side effects, something OOP encourages the exact opposite of.
That is more related to the frontend, the frontend doesn't have to overfetch data.
But the graphql still will fetch that data and just filter what does out, it still has to get that data.
Example is a query like
```
{
currentUser {
id
name
todoLists {
title
items {
name
}
}
}
}
```
The resolver will likely get the whole user object from the database, then just send name and id. Then when it finished getting the user, it will then query for the todo lists, and then only send the title (even though it got the whole row for each todo list), then after it fetches those lists, it will query for the items. And retrieve the whole rows of each item from the database.
The data the server needed to fetch didn't change, just what the frontend receives. It is still loading and fetching all the data on that query and then graphql filters the results leaving the server.
Also in the above steps, you notice it queries AGAIN after a data set has been retrieve, this causes an N+1 problem.
It is not inherent in the specs or implementation that fixes these. If you want to avoid fetching the whole object you will need custom code, and to avoid N+1 problem, you need batching of data within requests that "caches" or consolidate nested requests like data-loader, and some form of response caching to help with these issues.
Not siding against the tech, just clarifying those cons.
Yes the client queries for only data it needs and server returns only data which client requested.
With this query,
{ currentUser { id name todoLists { title items { name } } } }
It is up to the server how it is implemented.
- The server can fetch all the data for the user, todolist and items from the database in one go and resolve the client query mentioned above. In this case there will be overfetching from the database if the client only requested user information.
The server can also fetch the data in 3 queries
1> First to fetch the user, lets say with id 1.
2> Then get all the todos for the for user id 1.
3> Then get all the items for all the todos in step 2. Batching/Dataloaders.
All these queries can be executed in parallel on the server side. Does this make the server complex? Yes but there is also benefit to this when the user only request currentUser it does not fetch any todolists or items from the database.
> It's still like putting comments above your functions.
If you're used to a certain language then sure that makes sense. Your comment seems like you are boxing yourself in, limiting yourself to just what makes sense in Javascript, very opposite of a programmer who looks to improve their craft.
Take a moment and think about that. Because it looks like Javascript comment...you only see it like that to a point of making this statement. There is a lot of ways different languages uses tokens/symbols to indicate something. Not everyone agrees what those symbols are used for. Some languages use it to define macros like C++ or preprocessor directives like C#. Some as comments JS/Python/. Some as like Java nothing.
Because the languages you use are use to it, and the language you use doesn't use something similar, it looks "wrong". That is in itself a narrow view.
I think you should question that kind of thinking, I believe it will be helpful.
> now that it has become evident that the brain is merely a kind of a computer
I am ignorant in this area. But I keep reading how brains are nothing like computers the more we learn. Your statement seems to suggest otherwise and id love to read about it. Can you drop something where I can start exploring about how the brain has become more evident that it's merely a kind of computer? Thanks!
The brain is thought to be merely a computer in the original sense of a long strip of paper along with a scribe and a rulebook. The logic is, a Turing machine can simulate quantum electrodynamics to an arbitrary degree of accuracy. Then, two beliefs about physics and the structure of the brain are included:
1. There is nothing going on in the brain that would require simulation to infinite accuracy. Not even a chaotic system would have this property, because they take a finite time to "blow up" an initial uncertainty, and the smaller the initial uncertainty the longer they take to blow up. For this proposition to be violated there would have to be an undiscovered fininite-time nondeterministic blowup, which is unlikely, but I've heard rumblings that we haven't proven that it can't happen in Navier-Stokes. So maybe it can happen in the brain.
2. There is nothing going on in the brain that depends on nuclear physics or anything more "powerful" than quantum electrodynamics.
I have not seen any evidence that 1 or 2 aren't true for the brain, so that puts something behind saying it's "merely a computer."
Pretty important point for how far we should regulate something.
I think the gaming community would want loot-boxes completely banned under the guise of "gambling".
The individuals that would spend an unhealthy amount on these loot-boxes are not individuals that will stop their behavior if lootboxes are banned or even regulated.
These individuals have know that you can't get your money back, you can't earn more money and you can blow your life savings on it. With no return promised, monetarily, these individuals know the money they spend can't be gambled back. Thats the crux of gambling and their laws. People truly believes one more bet and they can get it all back.
It's insane if a person on Overwatch or Fortnite truly believes the money they waste if beyond their budget is a good investment at all. That problem lies with the individual not EA and loot boxes.
Those people will have constant issues with their finance until they seek the help they need to stop. That could be learning better budgeting behavior to identifying they have a gambling problem.
That could be a gambling impulse but really we know people that constantly spend their money carelessly regardless of some mental addiction. A lot of people lack of financial control shouldn't create laws to dictate to companies what they should do, especially in a market saturated with competition that don't deploy any of these practices simply because these people refuse to follow a monthly budget thats within their means.
We don't remove things from society just cause others have difficulty with it. Now I have no issue with more regulations especially targeted at kids, but let's be honest here. Most of this should still fall on parents and education. Companies caught pushing to sell these random loot-boxes to kids should be addressed and fined. Especially the ones that use streams that buy these boxes and open them with kids audiences. These companies that sponsored these streamers should receives fines for targeting kids. Also like to see some form of guarantee or odds exposure.
Long rant, but I find the fact you can't get monetary value back makes it extremely different than the current types of gambling and should effect the way we regulate it. End of the day, when no monetary value can be extracted we are regulating random chance and rewards...silly path to go down to call anything random and rewarding essentially gambling.
>because now you're paying the bulk JS load cost of loading Redux
Gonna have to quantify that. Cause I imagine if you did, you'd redact that statement. Redux is a very straightforwards and SMALL library that handles global state.
Its concept can be difficult to follow at first which may cause some to think it way more complex under the hood than it really is.
I don't think peoples complaints of YouTube are invalid at all.
But I think it is interesting how much credit these people that monetize YouTube don't give google at all.
Video hosting has always been expensive comparatively. They are large files. You tube stores multiple resolutions of your files.
YouTube hosting your video is free. You don't pay for it. These people that are bringing in $500 - $4,000 crying that 'youtube isn't giving me all my money' seem to also have a sense of entitlement in itself.
YouTube has a relationship with its creators. Creators get free video hosting, a video social platform and they can earn quite a bit of money doing it. YouTube in turns get a portion of the ad money too.
When YouTube demonetizes something they lose money too. They know their system can hurt their bottom-line in the end.
Understanding this is a business relationship between the two entities would probably make their attempts more professional. Maybe open a business that represents a large sets of these YouTubers instead of each one make a video about it. That way their collective views are significant chunk and they can apporoach YouTube as a professional entity.
>Video hosting has always been expensive comparatively.
Torrents seem to be doing it perfectly fine for free.
People keep speaking about YouTube as if its main function is video storage, while if fact the main thing they bring to the table these days is suggestions, search and a massive pre-established audience. If there was a way to plug into their search/suggestions/ads without giving away control of your video files, a lot of high-earning content creators would likely to do just that. However, there is no such option. I'm not aware of any reliable video search outside of Google.
>Understanding this is a business relationship between the two entities would probably make their attempts more professional. Maybe open a business that represents a large sets of these YouTubers instead of each one make a video about it.
But that's the thing. Content creators don't want a business relationship. The promise of Web 2.0 was that there will be no editors or publishers, just a generic UGC platforms. This idea is massively backfiring right now in all kinds of ways.
Broken Age from start to finish took less than three years to make and went over-budget but still managed to complete the game by creating the two parts into chapters to get early sales outside the original kickstarters.
People who have never managed or been part of managing big projects with deadlines don't understand that. They see the above as a failure rather than obstacles that they succeeded in getting over and releasing a moderate to good game.
This had very little to the discussion. Of course it can't be replaced. Code is created by humans, and as long as we have opinions nothing gets truly replaced. Just decreased usage over time.
> C++ and Switft just became "more dominant".
Yup, like this. Of course a general statement is no.
I have very little interest in this topic. But I seen this SAME comment a million times on anything thats new that attempts to challenge something. And as usual whether something "dethrones" something is less interesting than what changes or ideas that it offers.
Just like ALL those you listed, they didn't replace any of those, but they definitely challenged the ecosystems, or improved the old ones.
Naunce discussion is far more interesting.
For example, why do you think Carbon won't be able to gain dominance over time? I mean I think thats a huge hurdle too.