For our use case, it just wasn't the right fit. In particular: 1) we needed more features/performance than Mongo's aggregation framework provided, 2) the mongod global lock was prohibitive for our write throughout (turning off fsync wasn't suitable), 3) schema migrations were difficult/impossible without transactional guarantees.
It seems like Mongo's addressed some of these concerns since we started building Heap.
Thanks! It's great to hear you found HNSearch useful. We were very happy to power search for HN but we haven't been able to dedicate much time to making it better. It's exciting to see Algolia iterating on HN's search functionality.
Yes, for some time (the dark ages I like to think) programmers had to sacrifice productivity to make things faster, or to make them fit in memory. The original C compiler had a 6 character limit on variable names, leading to abominations like `strstr()`.
Fortunately, by the Pentium era, which was when PHP was designed, those times were long gone.
"X made this design decision before us" is never a good justification for any design decision unless the decision is truly arbitrary (i.e., are arrays 0 or 1 indexed?) -- then it might be better to stick to what's more familiar. If it was a good design decision then, then there must have been some reason at the time that should be true now to give a good case for repeating a design decision.
Slava @ rethink here. There are hundreds of really cool production use cases of RethinkDB that we know of. We'll be publishing a "who's using it" page soon (we have tons of work and haven't gotten around to this bit yet, but will soon).
Note that Rethink is still in beta. Lots of companies already use it in production, but we advise people to test carefully until we ship a long term support (LTS) release. We'll also offer commercial support options then.
A thousand times this. Markets automatically value knowledge and discoveries at nothing because you typically have to possess knowledge (sometimes for 100 years) before you can estimate its value. If the development of a new industry goes through stages "A B C D ... X Y Z," where A-M are academic discoveries, the market awards 100% of the profit to N-Z and maybe a percent or two to M if they got lucky with patents, even though A-M required significant capital expenditure to carry out.
Everything we care about has been touched by uncompensated academics in some way (uncompensated = rewarded with <1% of the produced value for the purposes of argument). Much of the Nitrogen in your body comes from the Haber process. The air you breathe has benefited from emission reduction chemistry figured out by academics. The basis for the chemistry that produced the plastics around you was all figured out by academics (albeit tested, refined, and implemented by better paid engineers). Academic physicists made semiconductor models that formed the basis of simulations that made the industry practical. If you're not on Windows, academics wrote a healthy chunk of the OS on your computer. Physicists figured out the details of nuclear energy (in the US, 20% of the energy you are using right now) and built models that are used to a significant degree in the engineering of all of the others. Scientists are going to be responsible for pulling our collective asses out of the fire wrt global warming. The more I write the more I realize (and hopefully you realize) just how silly this train of thought is. As for mathematics, where would engineers be without linear algebra or calculus? How much less efficient would industry be without linear programming (programming = schedule making in this context)? It's impossible to even formulate these thoughts correctly because everything is interrelated.
I challenge you (great?-grandparent libertarian) to find an industry that does not inextricably depend upon some kind of model or fact produced by uncompensated academics (as defined above -- use any threshold for value capture you deem appropriate).
Whatever the market rewards people for, it is not value creation. It is value creation multiplied by a long list of factors which often go to 0 for arbitrary reasons (your customers are too poor, your product is not excludable, etc.)
Fortunately, people are not rational actors wrt accumulating money. Here's what future career paths very roughly look like for new grads (based on my own perceptions, not glassdoor):
Helping the poor: $0 (maybe $12k if you count a fellowship)
Trying to Cure Cancer: $25k/yr, bump to $40k after 6 years
Engineering Medical Devices, Airplanes, etc: $60k/yr
Trying to Build the Next Twitter: $100k/yr-$150k/yr
Helping Rich People Game the System to Get Richer: $150k/yr, $300k/yr after a few years if successful
What disturbs me is that if I were to prioritize this list based on benefit to humanity, it would take the exact opposite ordering. There was <1% chance of that happening randomly.
What is a fan? Someone who gave your music a thumbs up? Or something willing to pay for the music you produced because they desire it so much? I have a feeling if you have hundreds of thousands of the latter you'd be in good shape.
If nothing else, he kind of slipped in the 'people desire'. Why is that a requirement for a passion? As in, why is the requirement that one should be making it for other people? E.g. what if you are really into scuba diving?
From the article, the Eightfold Path to Monad Satori:
Don't read the monad tutorials.
No really, don't read the monad tutorials.
Learn about Haskell types.
Learn what a typeclass is.
Read the Typeclassopedia.
Read the monad definitions.
Use monads in real code.
Don't write monad-analogy tutorials.