Elixir and the Phoenix framework work like this, with a process spawned per request.

'Process' is an extremely overloaded term. It's more of a green thread for Erlang VM applications.

It is a green thread, but Erlang's green threads each have their own heap/garbage collector, so they're not sharing memory.

Ive been hearing nothing but good things about Elixir, I may have to check it out.

Any recommended places to start with?

http://elixirforum.com is a good place to check out. There are a few excellent books out there to help you get started with OTP, which makes Elixir beastly, and Phoenix (a web framework) as well. The forums are an excellent place to find deals on books, too.

I'd say the assertion was under the assumption that the devs in question know the .Net stack well enough to gain at least a 10% productivity gain over using a stack they are less familiar with.

By the grandparent's description, the difference would be that DDG is not saving the ip address and browser information associated with the search query. If they're only saving the frequency of each search query and nothing else, then there would be no way to see for a particular user/browser/ip address what search queries have been performed because that dimension to the data simply doesn't exist.

Jetpack Joyride has the exact same control idea when you're controlling the "Profit Bird" vehicle. So it must be a bird thing.

Hey, I just looked at it, and Jetpack Joyride does not have the same control scheme. It is the "hold button to accelerate up at constant acceleration" controls like other previous games, not the Flappy Bird's "tap to give a sudden impulse" scheme.

Edit: Actually, it's a combination of many schemes. There's a gravity suit that inverts gravity. There's jumping from the ground, which is impulse-based. But the generic jetpack flying is acceleration-while-holding-based. Bottom line, I would not say it's "exactly the same idea" as flappy bird at all.

Interesting. It seems feasible that the cute graphics and memorable name play a role.

If you consider the price in terms of the utility you'll get out of it I think that's a reasonable price. This book[1] is recommended up the page and that's $23 minimum.

[1]: http://pragprog.com/book/dnvim/practical-vim

Right, but you get to keep the book, not give it back after 6 months.

I would imagine that the price/kW of coal will become easier to beat as we run out of it.

We're not running out of coal any time soon.

Pick your favorite energy technology (oil, wind, solar), it still applies.

It's quite a bit harder to run out of wind and solar.

Yeah. My comment has nothing to do with finite or infinite amount of any energy technology but rather that my original comment applies to fusion competing with the price of any existing energy technology such as coal, oil, wind, solar, etc.

Sure, but it's not too difficult to run out of the materials necessary to usefully collect those energy sources.

If there's anyone out there comfortable in both the way of vi and the way of Emacs, does this feel better than the Emacs emulation [1]? I'd love to be able to work with text more efficiently in Visual Studio, but the Emacs emulation feels only half way there. [1] http://visualstudiogallery.msdn.microsoft.com/09dc58c4-6f47-...

i used to use the emacs emulation and i agree with you, it only felt halfway. Also, Jared seems way more responsive than the emacs people. i filed a few bug reports and saw few status updates or general updates. After feeling frustrated with that and the half-baked feel i switched to Vim and found VsVim. i've been really happy and havent looked back.

If it was a computer playing the exact same notes as MacDara Ó Raghallaigh but with simple sine waves, would it be boring then? The author notes in the first paragraph that if an instrument is producing overtones then it is being polytonal, and hence not necessarily boring.

Ack, I got so frustrated at the beginning of the paragraph I didn't notice the author was making up his own definitions of monotonic and polytonic, and instead assumed he meant monophonic and polyphonic. My bad.

Anyway, I suspect the answer to your question is no, if done properly. That is to say, I believe if the computer caught all the rhythmic, dynamic, and pitch subtleties of the music, the music would still be interesting, if perhaps harder on the ears.

It looks like this is because rescue is a reserved word in Ruby (Disclaimer: I'm not a Ruby expert, just basing this on a Google search and the syntax highlighting)