React Native and (arguably) Flutter are going through a golden age right now. Major companies like Tesla, Coinbase, and Shopify have adopted them, and the developer experience has never been better. I'm not sure why it worked now, but didn't work for Xamarin / Ionic, though.
For Xamarin I would answer that with: Flutter and React native are 'light' on the developer: you get instant feedback. Xamarin, at least when we dropped it 2 years ago, was really slow and, besides c# which we will use on the server, hardly pleasant or light. I think these days, the developer needs a smooth experience (once the tons of crap has been installed and set up, which is why I prefer Flutter over react native) so things that are not that will fall over. I think, after that, comes author influence: so if you take that, you get to RN, Flutter, Xamarin, Ionic if you sort them by EasyOfDev,AuthorInfluence.
Popularity means popularity. It doesn't mean utility. There are plenty of dumb things large companies use. OTOH, there are also many unsexy, little-known, ubiquitous technologies essential to certain sectors of the economy.
Really surprising move, considering that's the main thing Mixer had going for it. Facebook got the short end of the stick on this deal, considering they'll have to negotiate again with these Twitch streamers.
Now that these streamers have an idea how much engagement and money they'll be losing from switching platforms, they'll probably demand more from FB Gaming for an exclusivity contract. I haven't heard people talk about Mixer being a better platform or experience for streaming, so I'm not sure what FB gets out of this considering Mixer's talent was its most valuable asset.
Fair point. Although I think Amazon is doing that based not on speculation about the possibility of gaining market dominance, but because they already have it. The fact that it's bonds and not venture funding is a sign.
"Single party rule in California has been an improvement."
I just moved to California so I don't have too much of a personal opinion yet but that sounds like a bold claim. From what I've seen, people over the age of 30 seem split on whether or not it's an improvement. You look at mismanaged cities like SF where there's insane homeless budgets but very little action and results and wonder if the monopoly on political power has made politicians here complacent.
Then there's the whole NIMBY thing. There's a whole lot of Democrats (arguably DINO's) that are very anti-building. They run under the Democrat banner so they'll probably keep getting re-elected. Obviously a solution here is people getting involved in local party politics to primary these candidates out, but that sounds like a miracle that'll happen as soon as we get nuclear fusion power plants.
The whole thing makes me wish 3rd party candidates were more viable in the US. This flip-flopping really sucks and creates a lot of chaos but political monopolies, from what I've seen, are able to hide mismanagement and bad policies really well. (Texas is probably a similar example from the other spectrum.)
You are choosing really bad examples, because Republicans are even more extreme than the Democrats on them.
Homelessness is an infinite money sink coupled with very problematic civil rights issues. It takes a unified effort at the federal level when states are willing to just ship their problems to other states. It also requires a unified effort at healthcare--both physical and mental. Nobody has come up with a good solution to homelessness yet--anywhere. If you have one, put it out there as lots of governments are desperate for a fix.
While NIMBY is bad irrespective of party, the YIMBY movement only started gaining traction once the Republicans were purged as the NIMBY movement could COUNT on them as a unified bloc of obstruction. And, as for NIMBY, renters outnumber property owners, yet don't show up to vote. Well, then what results do you think you're going to get?
As for Texas, it isn't as uniformly Republican as you think. The major cities are gaining significant Democratic representation (the Republicans just banned straight ticket voting because it destroyed them in Houston last cycle). You can also see this in the Covid-19 response--the mayors for big Texas cities almost uniformly shut down--Austin declared very early in order to avoid the disaster that would have been SXSW.
Yes, the gerrymandering in Texas is horrific, and the areas outside the cities are as stupid red as it gets. However, Texas isn't as unified as you think--in spite of the human-shaped Senator known as Ted Cruz.
The homeless coming in from out of state turns out not to actually be that prevalent in practice. In LA, for instance, only 18% of currently homeless residents became homeless while living out of state [0]. So if you could magically get everyone from out of state off the streets, you'd still be left with 82% of the homeless population, i.e. there'd still be a big homeless problem.
To a first order approximation, the majority of homeless are simply residents who lose a job or can't earn enough money, can't afford their rent, and end up on the street. Making a lot more housing available so it's not so impossible to afford is clearly an important part of the solution, which we seemingly can't do as long as progressive democrats are in charge.
Homelessness is, unfortunately, not a uniform block.
Some chunk are from out of state. Some chunk are mentally ill. Some chunk are addicted to drugs. Some chunk have physical ailments. Some chunk are fleeing abuse.
This is what makes homelessness so intractable. Even if you fix a chunk, that's probably less that 20% of the problem. Now, you've spent a lot of money, made no visible progress on the problem, and have a bunch of people clamoring about how you wasted money.
> "As for Texas, it isn't as uniformly Republican as you think. The major cities are gaining significant Democratic representation"
This is because of Democrat-voting people leaving Democrat-led states and cities that are no longer functioning well. If their policies worked, why would they leave (for example) CA in record numbers to move to TX?
Un-American? There's nothing more "American" than having the right to do whatever you want with your personal property.
The free market answer here isn't forcing them to adhere to your tastes, it's to make or promote a competitor that can actually compete with YT.
Let’s just stick to the facts then for a second. In this particular case, Youtube has decided I can’t watch a video with dubious facts and make up my own mind whether it’s bullshit or not.
American values are not all about capitalism. We have some ideas on the individual in America.
But, I’m with you on the need for YouTube competitors, but I lack the imagination to see how it can happen. That’s why I’m advocating for the jamming of American values into a what is essentially becoming an institution as opposed to a company that operates against market forces.
> That’s why I’m advocating for the jamming of American values into a what is essentially becoming an institution as opposed to a company that operates against market forces.
Do you also feel this way about historically monopolistic media companies? They also exercise editorial control. NBC, NewsCorp, Sinclair, ClearChannel, AT&T, Disney...
Not every conspiracy theorist gets an oped or interview on any other platform.
I’ll say that old school television had a real scheduling and demographic constraint, they really had to hone in on their programming.
Our modern internet media landscape doesn’t have these constraints, so we really are curating on certain criteria where the overwhelming deciding factor isn’t just ‘do we have enough time for this’ and ‘is this what most of our viewers want’.
Youtube can get content to exactly the right demo, and scheduling is a non factor. So, what is editorial control in this landscape?
Youtube hasn't decided you can't watch, they have decided not to spend resources allowing you to watch it on their platform or to accept sponsorship for the content because they feel that it would cost their brand money or otherwise be against their collective shareholder interests.
> Youtube has decided I can’t watch a video with dubious facts and make up my own mind whether it’s bullshit or not.
That is not factually true since the video is available in other places. What Youtube has done is decided to try to make it harder to view and share the video by removing it from their platform.
Do you think SwiftUI is still too experimental to build out a production-ready app? I'm a RN dev leading the app development at our startup, but every time I check on SwiftUI I LOVE what I see. Sadly it looks like the final results are mostly tech demos rather than fully integrated apps.
Thinking maybe we have to wait for a behemoth's adoption (like AirBnB & React Native) to take the ecosystem to the next level.
I've shipped a small app in it and am collaborating on another currently. If you're looking to use it on your team I'd wait for this years online WWDC, see whats announced and evaluate from there.
I would say it just depends, which I know isn't satisfying as an answer. I shipped an app named Eggy which is all SwiftUI- but it isn't super complex exactly. There are still plenty of simple problems that are hard to get around. But you can definitely use it to replace pieces of an app.
I also shipped an app for a client called Droplii. I definitely believe you can use it for production level apps. Productivity is through the roof. There are just a few small quirks, but I believe the pros out weigh the cons here.
That was an interesting read, thanks for linking to it. It's hard finding articles online discussing Node and performance, most people just dismiss it as an unviable option due to scale and speed concerns. 30x really is quite the jump though.
> Each Node worker runs a gRPC server
Not going to lie, this kind of surprised me. When I think of a Node backend I think of ExpressJS. Not because I think Express is better, but because it's been pushed around in the past few years as the fastest, simplest way of running a backend.
Yet, if you're going to be running a gRPC server, why not use a more performant language with better multithreading support? I thought this article was about them optimizing a grandfathered-in solution (such as Express), but I can't tell why they built out a gRPC server in Node in the first place.
Our integrations are primarily written in Node, which was the original language used for everything at Plaid. Almost all of those original services (except for integrations) have been migrated to Go or Python at this point. We've standardized on gRPC as our wire format, so we stayed consistent and used gRPC in Node.
With perfect hindsight, it's a fair point that all the pros and cons could net out to another language being best for our integrations. Integrations are the largest and most quickly-changing codebase at Plaid, so such a migration would be a massive undertaking. We definitely didn't want to block scalability improvements on doing a language migration.
I've been hoping that the Cloudflare folks will open source parts of their Workers; they seem to have figured out a secure, performant way to run untrusted javascript at scale.
The Node gRPC implementation is fine. It uses the C++ implementation which is the gold standard. It has Prometheus and OpenTracing interceptors. You basically give nothing up by using it, if your team wants to write a language that runs on node.
The bigger issue to me, is (at least the last time I looked) you can't use the cluster module with node combined with gRPC, so the only real way to take advantage of extra CPU capacity, if available is workers or external processes that are self-managed vs. cluster integration.
I think you can just run one node.js per core (or whatever the optimal balance is) and tell your load balancer that there are instances of your service available at hostname:8080, hostname:8081, etc. A lot of people are going to get this "for free" when they tell their container orchestrator that they want 8 replicas that each request 1 cpu, and the scheduler finds a node with 8 free cpus.
