writes "Last week I attended a local technology user group's monthly meeting to learn about a programming language I'm not familiar with, Erlang. Wikipedia currently describes Erlang as "concurrent, garbage-collected programming language", a fact that seemed supported by speaker Bryan Hunter's presentation at the event I attended. Mr. Hunter described the language's strengths in concurrency (specifically, shared memory and message passing), in garbage collection (each process has its own garbage collector), in reductions (which provide you with "crazy performance"), and in distribution (which is built-in). He demonstrated how the language is used to create computing clusters, setting up and connecting nodes and then demonstrating some of their unique communication protocols.
The demo impressed upon me the value of functional programming languages (of which Erlang is a member), but I'm still wondering if I should first master one of the more "popular" languages I've been exploring (such as C) or object-oriented languages (such as C++) before trying to fully wrap my mind around Erlang. One thing I picked up from the presentation is that once you learn Erlang, it may be difficult to wrap your mind around OOP once you've gotten used to programming with Erlang.
Should I, as one of the the more well-known resources on the language (http://learnyousomeerlang.com/) suggests, learn me some Erlang?"Link to Original Source
writes "With news that Nintendo will now be collecting revenue from YouTube whenever the console developer's intellectual property (IP) appears in videos uploaded to the Google-owned video distributor, will other game publishers want a piece of the pie? Mario and Luigi may be popular characters in fan-generated YouTube videos, but IP from other game publishers are just as popular, including Blizzard's World of Warcraft and LucasArts' Star Wars universe. Will game publishers such as Activision and even Microsoft pressure Google to make the same kind of deal Nintendo now has with YouTube?"Link to Original Source
writes "Prepaid cellular carriers have long been perceived as providing lesser services than expensive contract carriers such as Verizon, AT&T, Sprint and T-Mobile, which tend to offer the "best" (and most expensive) smartphones and cellular services, leaving the cheapest prepaid carriers with bargain-bin devices and services. This is no longer the case, however, with services such as SIMPLE Mobile enabling consumers to use their unlocked devices over the same cellular networks as the contract carriers — and at lesser expense.
With services such as SIMPLE Mobile available, why do people continue renewing their expensive contracts? Why don't more people get their phones and other devices unlocked and migrate to a less expensive but equivalent prepaid carrier? Is the real reason because they're more afraid of losing their status than losing their service, since going with prepaid services isn't considered as "sexy" as the contract carriers' big-budgeted marketing departments make their own services out to be?"Link to Original Source