rabbitfang

Who cares?

Either way their free Scala plugin for IntelliJ is pretty sweet. Kotlin looks very similar, will be interesting to see how it develops.

What is the minimum python version required to run this?

Even more awesome would be to add metrics for inbound and outbound network packets per second! ;)

"Did IBM fork Java when Oracle bought Sun? If so why isn't Oracle going after IBM"

IBM has had their own JDK implementation for more than 15 years. April 6th 1997 is about as close a date as I can find: http://www.os2ezine.com/v2n7/javarev.htm (that's version 1.0.2, so it's probably even earlier).

IBM have a license and produced a fully compatible implementation. Before Oracle bought BEA (who bought JRockit) there was also another independent commercial JDK implementation in addition to the IBM and Sun/Oracle ones.

That is an unusually long namespace. It says more about the coding style of the programmer that wrote it than it does about Java.

I really don't see why there is a need for everyone and their dog to respond to Yegge's rambling blog post. Is language [X] conservative or liberal is now littering the HN front page.

If I could have an IntelliJ-level IDE for Ruby or Python or JS I'd be very happy.

The company behind IntelliJ already makes IDEs for Ruby, Python and JS:

Python: Pycharm http://www.jetbrains.com/pycharm/

Ruby: RubyMine http://www.jetbrains.com/ruby/

JS: Webstorm http://www.jetbrains.com/webstorm/

I've been very impressed by Scala. Play is also very productive. IntelliJ has an excellent (free) Scala plugin and I've read that support for Play is coming in the next version: http://blog.jetbrains.com/scala/2012/07/20/play-2-0-support/

I would hope so. Perhaps they should call those out to make it clearer?

I recently read that Heroku was considering going multi-region.

I'm a Java developer and find working with Scala a pleasure. I will admit I probably wouldn't have given it a serious look if it wasn't for JVM support.

In order to be FUD I would need to be spreading false information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt

As I have pointed out everything in my post was factually accurate. I had no intention of spreading misinformation.

You do realise that security patches are still being provided for even RHEL 3? https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/rhel3els-errata.html

Go does fall somewhere between the two, which is what I was getting at. Whether that's a good or a bad thing was what I hadn't made my mind up about. I like the idea of something that's expressive and fast, my thoughts are currently that it could to be more expressive.

Fact: C is faster than Go:

http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u32/benchmark.php?test=all...

Fact: Python is more expressive than Go (less code):

http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u32/benchmark.php?test=all...

If I wasn't interested in Go I wouldn't complain about not having binaries. You may not be running RHEL 5.0 but there are many organizations which still have many systems on it. It's not always up to Joe Developer to decide to upgrade the OS on every box in an organization. Perhaps I need to know more about building go to compile my own binaries, but not having to deal with C is one of the reason's I was looking at Go in the first place.

How is this FUD? C is faster than Go, Python takes less code than Go and the binaries don't support RHEL 5.0. I thought my post wasn't particularly biased, but I'm pretty shocked at the reaction I got :(

> dynamic JVM-based languages like Scala and Clojure

Scala is a statically typed language

Go may make more efficient use of memory for the cases you describe, but the JVM still beats the pants off Go:

http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u64q/benchmark.php?test=al...

Also, you haven't factored in Java's escape analysis and on-stack allocation.

Go feels to me like it is trying to combine C and Python. Much more efficient than Python, but not as efficient as C. Much more expressive than C, but not as expressive as Python. I can't quite decide if that's combining the best of both worlds, or compromising on both fronts.

What's up with the official Go binaries being incompatible with RHEL 5? I might have another look in about a decade or so.

It depends on the organization, but using a new language to solve a specific problem is a good way to get the foot in the door.

> the US East-1 AZ

us-east-1 is a region, containing multiple AZ's.

us-west-2 (Oregon) has identical pricing to us-east-1 (Virginia).

The Oregon (us-west-2) region is the same price as the Virginia (us-east-1) region.

There are two different us-west regions. One in Oregon (priced the same as us-east) and one in California.

The MS CLR is also significantly slower than Java: http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/demo/benchmark.php?test=al...

Single core result Java still 3x faster than C#: http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u64/benchmark.php?test=all...

yeah. Nice addition, should make Guava etc. much nicer to use, but I'm also sticking to Scala.

>> Other than renaming(which can be done for ruby, though it requires manual effort), there is no refactoring which Java does better than Ruby.

Perhaps you could name this mysterious IDE which you claim provides reliable refactoring support for Ruby which is equivalent to the refactorings provided by Java IDEs? RubyMine is the best one I've seen http://www.jetbrains.com/ruby/features/index.html, but it doesn't match what can be done in Java.

On a large project the ability to refactor is important. Making structural changes to a large Ruby project is extremely time consuming and error prone. Pretty much anything is better at dependency management than bundler/gem. If you have to compile your dependencies at install time you're probably doing something wrong. Not to mention the version incompatibilities between gem versions and syntax changes.

I've used both Java and Ruby and Java is by far the more advanced runtime with better support. Ruby may have much cleaner syntax than Java, but better tooling is NOT one of Ruby's strengths.

Reading your post I suspect you've had very little exposure outside of Ruby.

I suspect the main reason Java became XML obsessed is because MS came out with C# and bragged about their XML and web services support. Ever since then Javaland has gone out of it's way to prove it was more XML and webservice centric. Net result is Java devs writing XML instead of code.