HN user
I can't believe anyone is taking this seriously. This was the guy's strongest critic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=2...
Regardless of their position on the matter, they are all attention whores.
To those that are -1'ing me- I think that PG appreciates dissenting opinion. If you are going to -1, at least provide a rebuttal. I just disagreed with him.
DropWizard, huh? I'd be really careful about anything that overly simplifies opening up CRUD functionality via REST. Be sure to spend some of that time you save looking into the security of your service. Easy generation of RESTful services has bitten many a Rails developer, for example.
Very glad to see this! Bootstrap saves us a lot of time.
> I don't understand your logic here. PG is talking about abstracting the problem away from the developer - you think the future of CS is that we will no longer make things abstract?!
I interpreted him as implying that writing code for parallel processing should happen in such a way that we don't have to think of it. But that is the whole problem. Developers are ignoring the complexity and opportunity that exists in understanding parallel computing. Development languages should evolve to embrace the opportunity that exists within understanding what is going on, not hide it. We didn't keep programming in BASIC since we were kids as our primary language, nor did we continue to use assembly. Things evolve, and, as developers, our thinking needs to evolve to support multiple CPUs and parallel computing; we don't need someone's help to wash over the fact that things have gotten more complex. We need to understand that complexity before attempting to abstract it.
> dinosaur egg – make a search engine that all the hackers use. (top 10,000). don’t worry about doing something constraining in the short term, because if you don’t succeed in the short term there won’t be a long term
Umm, search is just fine thank you. I could not survive without Google currently. The only thing I don't like about them is the lack of good customer support and the way they tend to develop unintuitive things with poor documentation (appengine was hard as hell to develop to, Android is getting better, but still they don't have a Rails-style "get up to speed" doc- they have a long way to go) But search is not their problem or mine.
> 2. replace email
> inbox is a todo list.
No, it isn't. It's a method of asynchronous communication and file transfer. If you're using it as a TODO list, you're doing it wrong.
> powerful people are in pain because of email. that’s an opportunity.
B.S. Email has survived Facebook, Twitter, Google Wave (cough)...
> whatever you build, make it fast. gmail has become painfully slow.
Maybe on a Pentium III. It isn't slow for me though.
> 3. replace universities
Good idea, but won't happen. The problem is any business/institution that gets continuous revenue without having to be accountable. Universities suck because they don't have to provide what they are needed for, they only have to compete with each other. The service the universities should provide is the preparation of its students for the betterment of the world. However, what this means is debatable, and the hippies of the 60s that grew up in an environment where they didn't have to work their asses off (like the teenagers of the depression era) are the ones teaching our kids how to feel better about themselves by building a hut in a 3rd world country.
> 4. kill hollywood
The studios are the only ones that really know how to produce. Music, T.V. and movies are all about production. The YouTube era won't last forever. It is only a matter of time before they get a full handle on things again.
> 5. a new apple
Apple is still on top of the consumer market. Solve problems that need solving in the way you feel is best. Don't work hard to be something else. Apple didn't.
> 6. bring back the old moore’s law
>...it would be great if a startup could make a lot of cpus look to the developer like 1 cpu.
As an analogy, why don't we make Ruby look like 8086 programming? Parallel computing is different- you can't solve problems with the same mentality.
And the reason they didn't was that they evolved from typewriters that relied on a forward/backward spin to move up and down (except for the carriage return lever). We're lucky that the original terminals didn't have a scroll knob on the left and right of the machine to move up and down and a lever to move to the next line or we would have been stuck with that concept for years and the laptop may not have been invented because the knobs and lever would have required some elevation, which means the whole thing would have had to have been bigger.
This feature of vi/vim along with not being able to save and quit as quickly as I can in emacs (ctrl-s ctrl-x, baby, none of that :q! shite) is the reason I use emacs. I totally respect those that use vim, but I'm not a freaking machine.