Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Finally someone decides to do something (Score 3, Insightful) 136

by phantomfive (#47959131) Attached to: Fork of Systemd Leads To Lightweight Uselessd

I agree and am happy to see this fork. As unpopular as it may make me, I actually like the initd functionality of systemd. I'm fine with using and writing the old init scripts, but systemd unit files are simple, concise, and powerful enough for my needs.

This is understandable, but there are much, much simpler ways of achieving this goal than systemD.

One of the interesting things about systemD discussions. If you watch, people who criticize say things like, "that's an ugly hot mess of architecture!" People who support it answer by saying, "the features are so good!" You can see those two things are somewhat arguing past each other.

You captured both sides of the argument in a single post, so good job.

Comment: Re:Methodologies are like religion (Score 1) 73

by phantomfive (#47959053) Attached to: 'Reactive' Development Turns 2.0
The problem isn't writing it the first time, that's easy enough. The problem is keeping it manageable and understandable; keeping like things together, so when the code needs to be changed, it isn't hard to change. It's a bit harder when the variable is spread randomly throughout the code, which reactive programming makes easy to do

Comment: Re:Failure tolerance is a mortal sin (Score 4, Insightful) 73

by phantomfive (#47957727) Attached to: 'Reactive' Development Turns 2.0

Obviously the manifesto is so short on details that it can be interpreted in many ways.

Short on detail but long on words. Compare it to the Agile manifesto which has few words, but communicates the ideas very clearly. When you read that, you understand the underlying principles of agile. This manifesto has more words, but still manages to clearly get its idea across.

When it comes to the manifesto linked in the article, as you mention it is short on detail. Specifically, who doesn't want to have a responsive system? Have you ever met anyone who said, "I think I will build a website. I want it to take 15 seconds for the pages to load." Saying you want your site to be responsive is so generic as to be meaningless.

The part that really makes me laugh is the part where they say it will have no bottlenecks. That has been the goal of designers since the day of Von Neumann. He was certain he would design his computer without bottlenecks. Once again, it's something that everyone wants.

The biggest thing they have that isn't generic there is that they require message passing. That seems like a weird requirement to me, but I'm sure they have a reason.

Comment: Re:Methodologies are like religion (Score 1) 73

by phantomfive (#47957691) Attached to: 'Reactive' Development Turns 2.0
I've been thinking about reactive programming a lot recently because it's used a lot in Angular.js. Probably in other javascript frameworks, too. My guess is it'll become more popular in the next few years, then recede into the past (and future, for those who don't remember) if it turns out to be a bad idea.

On the surface it seems easier, because things happen automatically, without having to be explicitely defined. The part I'm struggling with is how to keep the code clean and readable with all this stuff happening automatically. There's probably a way to do it, but I haven't found it yet.

Comment: Re:Comparable? Not really. (Score 4, Interesting) 95

by phantomfive (#47957139) Attached to: Is Alibaba Comparable To a US Company?
I read an article recently on exactly that topic, which is probably worth quoting:

The market is fully capable of pricing the fact that Alibaba stockholders don't actually own a direct claim on Alibaba's Chinese assets and can't elect its board. Truth be told, shareholders don't "own" any company; they own whatever rights are specified in the share agreement........

True comfort for shareholders comes not from legal boilerplate, but from incentives. Alibaba founder Jack Ma could take the $22 billion raised Friday and stiff his foreign partners. That's a risk. But his self-interest is otherwise. He wants a strong stock as a currency for acquisitions. He wants stock options to motivate his increasingly global management team. He wants easy liquidity for himself and other insiders. .....

when investors begin to worry about the actual rights specified in a share agreement, it usually means something has already gone seriously wrong.

Alibaba is probably as good as any stock. If things go wrong, things go wrong.

IF I HAD A MINE SHAFT, I don't think I would just abandon it. There's got to be a better way. -- Jack Handley, The New Mexican, 1988.