> When your software team needs to pick a language today, you typically weigh two factors: language performance and developer velocity.

There are obviously other factors in play as well, or languages that are really good at both but weak in other areas (like adoption and mind share) would dominate. And I for sure don't see a lot of Crystal around..

Either that or just wait out the problem. As long as the linux gaming market keeps growing the incitaments for the hardware people to change their minds will increasingly be there.

What the (hardware) people want doesn't matter, at least as long as the IP owners have the deeper pockets.

"The market can stay irrational longer than you can remain solvent" is a pretty universal saying, and it also applies here - the rational thing for MAFIAA et al would be to give up and engage in universal licensing schemes similar to the lesson the music industry learned well over a decade ago. There, you have virtually every single mainstream artist/band available everywhere... Apple Music, Youtube Music, Spotify, Amazon Music, Tidal, Qobuz and I'm sure I forgot a bunch. Piracy in music has all but vanished as a result.

We could have had that with Netflix, and a lot of IP catalogs actually were on Netflix, but because of naked greed it all splintered up, and everyone is running their own distinct streaming silos again.

The thing about this kind of hardware standard is that the dominant hardware makers control the IP owners. Copyright is a totally different ballgame.

What I feel is really missing from factories is the ability to do bulk inserts of a whole chain of entries (including of different kinds). That is where 95% of the inefficiency comes from. As an additional bonus it would make it easy to just list everything single record that was created for a spec

Neither did the dismissal of AI in the article. I'd classify it as "not even wrong" in that the factual parts are true, but the conclusions are utter nonsense as ChatGPT can be extremely useful regardless of the claims being true.

The assertive jump from it not understanding to it being not worth using is pretty big. Things can also be useful without having trust in them.

It'd be very interesting to see an OO language that passes around allocators like zig does. There is definitely nothing in the concept itself that stops that.

What about allocators in C++ STL (Standard Template Library)? Honestly, I have been reading & writing C++ for a squillion years, and (1) I have never used an allocator myself, and (2) never seen anyone else use it. (Granted, I have not seen a huge number of enterprise C++ code bases.)

> (1) I have never used an allocator myself, and (2) never seen anyone else use it.

arena allocators are necessity for high performance software, because heap allocations are magnitude slower.

they are very awkward to use in the current STL, they are part of the template definition. Back in the day EASTL did allocators much better but it never became a thing.

The point of structured concurrency is that if you need to do that in code, then there is a need of a predefined structured way to do that. Safely, without running with scissors like how channel usage tend to be.

It would be good to see an example of what that looks like.

But how does one actually do that? What does the architecture and code look like?

Neat, I see how this can prevent a lot of frustration when it comes to making certain queries stay quick as complexity grows. I wonder if this means I can forget the trick to chose LATERAL queries all over the place for performance reasons.

Crystal. Expressiveness and get-shit-done ability similar to the one of Ruby while being way faster in execution.

Norway still have cheap electricity in the grand scheme. It is just more expensive than it used to be.