I know this happened with Angular 1, but I am curious why I never hear this sentiment for GoLang which people seem nuts for. Is it because Google is responsible for maintaining the actual UI Widgets in this case?
I use GoLang regularly and so consider this my personal opinion for your question;
•GoLang filled up a need gap of simple yet high performant server side language which could scale up with the developments in the compute power.
•By the time GoLang stable release was made, it was widely used by Google itself within its production infrastructure. Docker, Kubernetes, Youtube using Go was a huge confidence booster.
•Of course it's been a decade since release, so it has stood the test of time even though there are criticisms regarding language design and Google's oversight on language development; even though major development comes from Google, I don't think there is a chance that they will pull it off just because they are heavily invested in it.
As for Flutter,
• It's been just two years, so we cannot compare it directly with current GoLang reg adoption and also this is a framework. I think Flutter didn't really fill any need gap Google had, it just seems like they waited to see if Cross-platform app development would still be a thing by the end of the decade and rushed in with a framework to compete with Xamarin/React Native.
• Google already has two first level language support for its android development Java, Kotlin but Flutter requires one to use Dart which wasn't originally created to be used in such a framework. So both android and iOS developers need to learn another language to build cross-platform apps using Flutter.
• Google claims it uses Flutter for some part of Google Assistant for Google Home devices and it is expected that Fuchsia uses Flutter as primary development framework; that's all in the future, if Google wants to inspire confidence they need to release a major app written using Flutter for android/iOS.
In short, I don't see Google loosing much in stopping development on Flutter as much as it stands to loose if stops development on GoLang and lately that's how Google has treated its projects. Of-course both are open-source, may be if Google stopped development on Flutter, the UI-widgets can still be developed by the community but I doubt whether the core-framework can be developed by just the community.
The sad but true reason is because people aren't generally making rational decisions on here. They'll claim a reason, but it's usually really based on pre-conceived notions. "Google kills projects so I won't use Flutter, but will definitely go all in on GoLang" is a great example of this.
Having youtube tutorials on something does not make you an expert on the subject. He appears to not have the skills to do basic JS debugging. It's great to ask for help, everyone needs help at some point. The issue I see is starting with "The dark side of GraphQL". If you haven't found the actual issue, how do you even know what the cause is? Just because your SQL query is fast doesn't mean there is some inherent problem in GraphQL or Apollo. That argument doesn't follow. It could be user error.
I don't mean to sound like a blind witness fanboy, but I think teaching something effectively does require some mastery of the subject.
I also don't think it is hyperbolic say he doesn't have basic debugging skills. What qualifies as basic debugging skills? Like he isn't capable of using a debugger and introspecting code? He can't use a print statement and look at code? Debugging an E2E bottleneck is not trivial.
I have no doubt. The unfortunate bit is that his tweet uses "GraphQL" to refer to a specific implementation (Apollo Server) of GraphQL rather than GraphQL itself.
But Apollo Server is by far the most common implementation of GraphQL servers, and the OP's thesis based on the twitter thread is that type-checking and validation are responsible for the slowdown, and type-checking and validation are inherent to GraphQL.
But there are dark sides to using sql, often from the abstraction that sql provides.
Maybe the optimizer picks a poor plan and you can't figure out how to make it work better. Maybe the schema has redundancy you can't change or the indexes aren't suitable for that query. Maybe it's auto parameterizing constants and the query with the problem has a parameter causing different behavior than the original constant used in optimizing the query, or maybe your query with 1000 elements in an in list worked great in memsql or whatever but is slow unexpectedly in the database you ported your app to. There are downsides to everything.
I've spent the first five years of my career at two FANGs, and I think the grass is greener in terms of amazing tech. Maybe I've been unlucky, but so much of my time is fighting with the enormous weight of the infrastructure to do anything. Builds, deployments, running tests, getting support from internal teams, using internal frameworks are all so stressful and unsatisfying to me. Not to mention I've never even sniffed any fun javascript framework or python work. It's been 99% Java.
Don't get me wrong--I've been lucky enough to work with and learn from some incredibly brilliant people, the work pays insanely well and lifted me from the bottom quintile to the top, and I don't have to worry about VC funding running out. But I also feel10% of the flow that I do when I'm at home cobbling together a javascript or python whatever. I understand that it isn't fair to compare my toy apps with the insane size of these companies, but still, I don't think your decision was that terrible in terms of just tech. Shoot, there are acquaintances who joined bitcoin startups when we graduated in 2015 and those people are probably worth a few million right now.
I wonder if there is anyone here who works at a unicorn and can tell me if Airbnb, Uber, Lyft, etc are a happier medium?
Yes, I agree with that, but I guess I thought we were discussing more of the engineering culture. I think at both places the biggest factor is your specific manager team, but that the average team at Google is more relaxed and enjoyable with higher QOL.
They are selling more than double the amount of stuff they were 5 years ago, and are over half of US ecommerece. You might care about getting a fake charger, but 90% of people don't give a crap if it's 30% cheaper than the real thing and magically appears at their house the next day.
You’re not getting a fake for 30% off... because then it is not a fake.. that’s just some off brand crap
It’s a fake when you get a counterfeit item that is sold to you at full price under the listing for the real thing. I think most people that seek out a particular brand and then find out it is a fake are pretty pissed off.
Yes, but at that point it is too late, right? I'm not defending the business practice--I just don't think many consumers consider that kind of exceptional possibility when they make purchases.
and fake batteries! - for laptops, cameras and cell phones - I have seen some really bad stuff come from the smiling boxes - and read nightmares from others.
It's to the point that I do not buy any batteries from Amazon and tell others to be wary, fire to save a few bucks is not worth it.
Sometimes it's easy to spot knockoffs, other times the sellers have the name of the OEM as their store it seems - and it's crazy bad.
When Samsung phones had a well publicized issue. Airlines prohibited their phones and called them out by name before every flight. You bet that's going to encourage them to never make that mistake again.
Sometimes yes, but if it happens there will be a very public recall, and they will replace the device for free. A crappy charger someone bulk- ordered white-label is not going to have either of those things.
accessing an API? I question how ethical what he did is, but I don't see how it is illegal. I think it's a lot like scraping, which LinkedIn failed to sue people for.
I doubt it's currently illegal, but I don't think it's impossible to make it illegal. Accessing the API enough to prove a flaw and report it is one thing. Getting 17 million PII records over the space of 60 days is orders of magnitude beyond that.
Especially given that things like GDPR and and the CCPA are drawing clear boundaries around private data and how companies can use it, it shouldn't be impossible to make laws that regulate how third parties access and use that data.
I'd also hope that Twitter faces regulatory penalties and perhaps civil liability depending on the harm done.
I think it has the ability to do more once it is sufficiently miniaturized. Small to the point that it’s not much different than wearing eye glasses.
Glasses can make a viral and sticky form factor that we already have centuries of experience with. If we can build an AR glasses product people want to wear then we have the potential to greatly increase the amount of digital information a human sees and processes. This information can be addictive, like smartphones, and of high utility, like smartphones.
Look at the success of wireless earbuds, they will be part of distributed wearable AR systems, they're screenless AR that exist already. AR doesn't always mean screens. Glasses can replace screens, but they won't be worn by everybody like Phones, so AR glasses will first compete with desktop, laptop and tablet screens in more professional environments. It can only go mainstream like phones in contact lens form, or some kind of iris projector that sits on your nose, likely still powered by a watch or a phone. Not sure if we see that in the next decade though.
I just started looking into and according to a few of my sources it isn't ready for primetime due to crashing issues and other problems with linux kernel versions
The threading model is not quite decided and the compiler is currently quite slow, but these things are being worked on and I think it looks very promising.
The Objective-C interoperability doesn't fully support generics, so writing iOS apps entirely in Kotlin is inconvenient, but some companies are apparently (it was said at KotlinConf) already using it to share business logic on iOS.
I don't understand why it's a moral imperative that people not take advantage of the VC funding subsidy? The VCs are wealthy interests looking to find a 10-20-100x exit at the end of this. I don't care if the Saudi Royal family places an enormous bet on automation over the next 10 years. Why is it for the best that all the people who use Uber not have that? I just don't understanding cheering that one of the few subsidies that is tricking down is being phased out, and I disagree with the suggestion that any of this is driving toward the end of paying drivers more.
Because it puts out of business other legitimate businesses which can’t access cheap money but that would otherwise be profitable. It can lead to a situation where a company becomes a monopoly, and at that point it can take advantage of the consumer.
Are you really trying to say that the utility of a free map of the entire world that includes street level views of the entire developed world is negated because it has too many sponsored pins?
According to this ride, Ubers are perfectly safe for 99.99% of their 1+ billion rides. I feel like 58 auto fatalities and 9 murders out of 1.3 billion trips is even way lower than the rate in the public.
