Map reduce and filter often are much more readable, but then sometimes a loop is clearer. I often see this when I use resharper's (a c# tool) auto refactor a loop into a linq statement , it can become unreadable.
Readability depends on both the underlying algorithm and its expression in code. Because LINQ has to work in existing languages, it can't express loopless algorithms as well as languages like J that have syntax designed to fit the style. You're probably also putting it at a disadvantage with the automatic translation, as you'll write different and cleaner array code if you approach the problem with array operations in mind.
The author is claiming (and I and many more practical-minded programmers agree) that in J, explicit loops are rarely needed, and usually not even helpful. As the J notation is designed for loopless programming, it has the same kind of bias, against loops. But knowing how J approaches things can be valuable. Most likely, many problems you think are unapproachable with map and reduce can be solved easily by knowing the right techniques.
Plus they may have hidden performance costs - or benefits. They may have function invocation and memory layout costs, but they may also be parallelised and optimized transparently. A regular for-loop is super efficient in terms of memory layout / access but it's by definition singlethreaded.
Yes, as always, it depends. The typical problem with array operations, e.g. in Fortran, is how well they're "scalarized", and the possible cost of not doing copy elimination over subroutine calls, for instance.
Presumably the exact semantics of a for-type loop depends on the language, but surely the C standard doesn't prevent auto-parallelization (including with SIMD vectorization, modulo arithmetic rules). Loops might also have OpenMP or other annotation.
"Rich" countries should not be allowed to externalize their environmental concerns.
What makes a country "poor" but the value placed on the lives of the people in it?
The resource-rich countries of Africa and South America are considered "poor" because the US and Europe see their people and institutions as expendable and replaceable.
> "Rich" countries should not be allowed to externalize their environmental concerns.
Morally sound, but how would you enforce that?
> What makes a country "poor" but the value placed on the lives of the people in it?
The value of the goods, services, business, and real estate that those people collectively control.
> The resource-rich countries of Africa and South America are considered "poor" because the US and Europe see their people and institutions as expendable and replaceable.
Assuming this is true, how did China shift from being poor to being not poor? Did they make their institutions unexpendable and irreplaceable, or did they do something else?
>The value of the goods, services, business, and real estate that those people collectively control.
You're asserting that the people collectively control the capital wealth (goods, services, businesses, real estate) of the country. This has been tried by more than a few countries but the folks that do try to do this are often labeled "communists" and toppled by US and European interests.
>how did China shift from being poor to being not poor?
China shifted from being poor to not being poor by asserting that control over its capital wealth, and thus far has been able to avoid having its institutions undermined by the west. Not that it hasn't[1] been[2] tried[3].
I mean “collectively” in the sense that some control one part and others control a different part, not that everyone has equal control over everything. In this sense it is also a description of America or even a hypothetical anarcho-capitalist zone.
The sum of all the stuff that all the people own or otherwise control is the sum of the wealth. That sense of “collectively”.
If your definition accurately described the difference between rich and poor countries, the people of the Global South would be considered wealthy.
If that wealth is not used to secure stable living conditions (like freedom from environmental hazards) for the people of the country, that wealth is not effectively owned or controlled by the people of the country.
>In this sense it is also a description of America or even a hypothetical anarcho-capitalist zone.
This also describes the conditions that result from the massive disparities in how America's wealth is distributed. After World War II massive resources were poured into segregating people into white-only neighborhoods[1] that accrue value (and wealth) over time and non-white neighborhoods that are targeted for dis-investment. When hazardous industries want to open, they choose the non-white neighborhoods[2] and when they close they leave the neighborhood with the task of cleaning up their messes[3].
America is able to reproduce the dynamics of its foreign policy internally because of this policy of geographic segregation. These dynamics continue to this day even as it has become taboo to implement segregationist policy explicitly. This is because there has been no appetite for the structural change that is necessary to keep the disparities from growing over time.
> If your definition accurately described the difference between rich and poor countries, the people of the Global South would be considered wealthy.
Please give an example of one country where the sum total of all the assets the residents control (I ought to have specified “divided by the population”) is high and the country is considered poor.
> This also describes the conditions that result from the massive disparities in how America's wealth is distributed.
And?
America is a rich country no matter how unfairly subpopulations are treated.
I will agree that there appears to be malicious unfairness, and to me it appears sufficiently severe that it cannot even be explained by pure greed. That’s a separate issue to this.
>I will agree that there appears to be malicious unfairness, and to me it appears sufficiently severe that it cannot even be explained by pure greed. That’s a separate issue to this.
It's really not. The same processes that underpin the unfairness within the US are reproduced in the relationships between the US and other "poorer" countries. The freedom of capital to do whatever it wants within the boundaries of the state is asserted abroad via "free trade" agreements--and barring that, militaristic threat--that ensure capital interests are preserved above all others. They ensure things like human rights, environmental concerns and labor safety can't interfere with the profit motive and maximization of investment growth.
Also wages in tech in the EU are laughably bad compared to USA. I'm in the UK, same problem. Yet everyone seems to think that a couple weeks more holiday makes up for it.
What is the overall cost of living associated with the respective salary. Amd of people proposing a free market, why is it a problem that suddenly the same job is paid more for in a more competitive job market?
As others pointed out, CoL is also way lower in most parts were there are relevant jobs to be had.
I am working a job that would pay at least double in SF. I can afford to pay the mortgage on a 130 square meter house with 500+ square meters of garden and relax by growing my own food as a hobby with 40 hours per week, 6 weeks of holiday, paid overtime, really good health care covered by insurance.
I live in one of the four largest cities in Germany. So I benefit from the infrastructure like theater,
Medical stuff and so on as well.
And also the ability to start a business on the side with filling out a single form.
And I am able to generate FU money from my main salary, go on trips, give to charity and such.
Reading about insane prices for living in SF or other tech regions puts a damper on the high salaries IMHO.
But I also define my life not by the amount on my pay check.
> I can afford to pay the mortgage on a 130 square meter house with 500+ square meters of garden and relax by growing my own food as a hobby with 40 hours per week
How is that possible? When I look at typical wages in Germany (50k - 80k Euros) vs cost of houses that size in Germany's four biggest cities (800k to over 1 Million Euros), something does not add up. Either your pay is way above market rates or you got your property way below market rate.
Either way, to me at least, your situation is extremely fortunate but you're an outlier and no developer moving to Germany could replicate it in the current market conditions.
Bought a property for 210k in 2011. Invested 160k and a lot of manual labor for renovation. Current value is around 500k. Not sure were you have your numbers. But sure. I can get a similar property for 900k or more in some other parts of Hamburg. I could probably pay more than a million in the most prestigious parts. Living in a middle class area surrounded by greenery is more luxurious in my book, though.
I worked with contractors based in Denver, their salaries were 3 times mine. I don't think cost of living in Denver is insane? Property prices were I am are insane
Wages in tech are laughably bad anywhere in the world, when compared to US. Tech landscape in Canada, Australia, Japan, Korea or Taiwan looks much more like Europe than like US. US is the outlier here, not Europe
Isn’t university for your children free in Germany? That’s like a 100-200 thousand dollar savings if you have two kids you want to put through college vs the USA.
The average college graduate in the US has $35,000 in debt. There are plenty of excellent, cheap public universities. If you don’t want to work in journalism, academia, management consulting or one of the other bastions of privilege and pedigree there’s little reason to pay the premium necessary to go to a top tier private university. And every single person who pays sticker price to go to a no name private college is wasting their money.
It's strange but true. I live in the UK and I think I could get paid 3-5x more in the US. But even though I'm annoyed by that pay gap, I will never work without healthcare and only two weeks of PTO.
At least job satisfaction doesn't change, I work with startups that interest me and I get to hack on a stimulating open source project. I'm just healthy while I do it.
I don't get this part - 2 weeks PTO - OK - tech companies are flexible in looking for good talent - if you're getting paid 2x you can work 6months a year to break even. Now taking off 6 months unpaid isn't realistic - but a month off isn't that unusual.
And the healthcare part what are you even talking about - what employer doesn't provide healthcare in tech ? You'll likely have a good plan an better coverage than NHS (eg. decent dental)
> You'll likely have a good plan an better coverage than NHS
What would an NHS-style plan cost in the US? Like, I'd be happy in a shared hospital room and having lower priority for non-emergency care, but in exchange having 0 co-pay, 0 deductible, 100% coverage for everything (including long-term care), 0 ambulance fees and a maximum prescription cost per item of $12/month?
Some of the NHS health care is shocking. I watched my dad dying on a ward with utterly shit jobs worth nursing staff. After enough of that he ended up in ICU with great care and died. Northern Ireland's NHS is an utter shambles. 3 week wait to see a GP. Surgery wait times of years. It's a crisis. I've got private health cover. Though don't be critical of the NHS, you ll be branded a heretic.
Your understanding of tech work in the US is basically wrong in every way, and sounds like you're parroting BBC propaganda on why everywhere is terrible but the UK.
I suggest living in the US for a year or two to see if it's the dystopian hellscape you think it is - you can always fly home to the glorious NHS if you stub your toe.
My passport and US immigration laws mean that I have to enter a lottery in order to get a job. No thanks.
The other aspect I forgot to mention is the way work days are treated. I work 7.5-8 hour days and then I get to hack on my own stuff. I'm sceptical of US attitudes to overtime.
2 weeks of PTO is the customary minimum in the US, and there is no legal minimum at all. Nonetheless, many people at good jobs receive more like 4-5 weeks of PTO. It really depends on where you work. I've never had less than 4 weeks of PTO at any vaguely tech-oriented company.
That's the case in all US States as far as I know. Nonetheless, every job I've had, in multiple States, going back well over a decade had 4-6 weeks of PTO.
The customary minimum is 2 weeks but most companies offer more and you can negotiate for more.
Yes but you get so much more for your taxes here that it evens out, in fact I think someone ran the numbers with Denmark and US as examples and actually the Denmark example had more disposable income after tax because the US person had to pay so much more for so much extra stuff that's included here.
Why wouldn't you? The number of EU professionals I've worked with here in the uk over the years is surprising to me, they all left their home countries because their prospects where limited by their governments with over zealous interference in business. Living in a business friendly country has obvious benefits: jobs and money
Chances are Nokia would have been a great competitor. Have you seen Nokia N9? It was in my opinion ahead of both iOS and Android at the time. But it was killed and replaced with Windows Phone.
Apple and Android didn't make Nokia irrelevant. Nokia made bad decisions and chose the losing player. After which said losing player gutted it.
Nokia had the might to a) build their own great OS, and b) continue to be a market leader. But when you have management making bad decisions, this is all you get. Whether you're in the EU or in the US, doesn't matter.
It is irelevant to the present that Nokia was a big player in the past. The fact that I was a top student in high-scool is irelevant to my current job where I underperform.
Nokia is now a shadow a its former self both in money it brings to the EU economy and in the amount of tech jobs it provides.
That's what's relevant now and there's no pride in this defeat.
Did the EU build an Apple? Yes, Nokia was a dominant phone manufacturer, so it clearly did. But it made a mistake and died (like Apple almost did in the 90s).
So you moved the goal posts by claiming that somehow it dying meant that it never counted.
Nothing is forever, just because the US has been briefly dominant in a field does not make it's approach right, especially as it's pretty obvious to the whole world there's a good chance it's going to become number two soon.
I think the whole western world has been fed a pile of anti American garbage for a generation. My wife actually said she wouldn't live there because she was afraid of getting shot. Ridiculous. Meanwhile everyone in the non western world wants to get to the USA. I'm in the UK and I'm now glad we have left the EU. The vaccine debacle has maybe shown us what the eu actually is: a massive bureaucracy where no one takes any responsibility for failings. (I voted to remain, I shouldn't have)
As someone in a similar situation, the US is extremely variable. It can be great or it can really suck. If your standard for greatness is that there are parts of it that are great then most countried in the world are great.
What is more interesting is the bottom quintile and the worst it can get. Because you'll find developped cities and rich neighborhoods with high safety and good healthcare in a lot of places. How bad it's likely to get and how much you have to worry as the average person is the better metric.
I'm 37, I'm starting to get worried about my age being a problem. But to hell with blaming employers who don't want me, it's their call. I think that maybe the actual problem is that by 40 they expect that I should be leading teams not just stuck at senior dev. Personally I want out of tech as I see supply and demand acting on wages (I'm in UK). Pretty soon, as far as I can estimate, it will go the way manufacturing went in the west: gone or heavily unionised blue collar like Germany which I don't want to be.
