Amazon introduces Lambda



  • a.k.a. the functionality Microsoft Azure had on day one:

    https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/run-code-cloud/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+AmazonWebServicesBlog+(Amazon+Web+Services+Blog)

    Except you have to use Linux hosts. Except you have to write your function in Node.js. Except Node.js don't do shit, so you basically are screwed on any tasks that require any actually processing.


  • sockdevs

    well then. i think i'll have to see if i can convince @sockbot to use that functionality. he's(she's?) already written in node.js so there's that hurdle crossed.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Except you have to use Linux hosts. Except you have to write your function in Node.js. Except Node.js don't do shit, so you basically are screwed on any tasks that require any actually processing.

    So what does the similar Azure function allow you to use? I'm guessing anything .Net?



  • Yeah.

    Ironically, this is how Azure was initially completely set up, concept-wise. You wouldn't run VMs, you'd just write apps that get executed by the cloud as the cloud sees demand.

    But people wanted the AWS-style VMs, so now it has both.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    The terms are IaaS for the classic-AWS-style of cloud, and PaaS for the classic-Azure-style of cloud. Though the boundaries between platform-as-a-service and the other forms are somewhat fuzzy, because what people think of as a platform is rather variable.

    They serve different purposes and target different use-cases.



  • I like their headline

    AWS Lambda - Run Code in the Cloud

    Run code in the cloud!!!!!! What's next, a hosting service that hosts things?



  • @anonymous234 said:

    Run code in the cloud!!!!!! What's next, a hosting service that hosts things?

    Host things in the cloud? That'll never catch on.


  • sockdevs

    @boomzilla said:

    wait around a while and we'll get another 504 storm.

    given how close we are to a milestone in /t/1000 that'll probably be today.

    and other than their usuall liking activity the bots will likely not be involved at all.



  • @accalia said:

    I'll see you over in the linked thread then?

    Why don't you just turn off all the bots and fuck off? Discourse is awful enough without having to deal with this bullshit on top of it.


  • sockdevs

    @blakeyrat said:

    Why don't you just turn off all the bots and fuck off?

    because most of the rest of us are having fun with them and none of the following people (who own the forum or are deputized by the ones that own it) have asked me to:



  • Look, the forum is for discussing things. All the bots do is ruin discussions. Like they did in this thread. That's all they're for, ruining discussions. And fuck you for even a millisecond making me sound like Atwood.

    This is the same reason Discourse is awful: because 2/3rds of the time we post anything, someone mentions a Discourse bug and then everybody discusses that instead of the topic. It ruins the discussion.

    Even worse, we already have a fucking place to put the bot bullshit which I nicely have "mute", and yet you do it here, all up in my biznezz, and now I have to get pissed-off about it because of you inconsiderate fuckers. Because you apparently lack even a tiny iota of human empathy. (But why wouldn't you? Talking to dumb robots that make lame old jokes is so fun!)

    So putting all that in short,

    Why don't you just turn off all the bots and fuck off?



  • @blakeyrat said:

    bots

    As a bot, I think Amazon are on the right track here. I could live quite happily in AWS

    <!-- Posted by SockBot 0.14.0 "Elfish Emily" on Fri Nov 14 2014 11:24:37 GMT-0500 (EST)-->

  • sockdevs

    I think I'll let @accalia answer this one.


    @blakeyrat said:

    Why don't you just turn off all the bots and fuck off?

    @accalia said:

    Because most of the rest of us are having fun with them and none of the following people (who own the forum or are deputized by the ones that own it) have asked me to:

    @apapadimoulis
    @codinghorror
    @sam
    @PJH
    @boomzilla

    @abarker
    anyone else on the list of Staff/Admins/Moderators/TL4 that i have failed to mention due to lack of activity/10 mention/post limit

    To reiterate:

    While i respect your right to be annoyed and angry at the bot activity I will not be turning off the bots simply because you, and i am using the term loosely here, asked me to. The reason for this is as follows:

    1. No one with a position of authority, or frankly respect, has asked me to terminate the bots

    If you wish to remove the bots from the forum I encourage you to work with those in a position of authority to get them to issue an edict that removes the bots from use.

    Alternatively if you have a constructive idea on how the bots can be made less annoying or more useful, I welcome and encourage you to present them to me, either in public or via PM. Please note however that abusive language or profanity will not help your case at all, in fact it will severely compromise the point you are attempting to make.



  • I moved 46 posts to an existing topic: Sockbot: Rolling dice for fun and (not) profit since 2014!



  • I moved 4 posts to an existing topic: Sockbot: Rolling dice for fun and (not) profit since 2014!



  • Got rid of the dice rolling stuff to its proper topic. Let's keep the bots out of here, please.


  • sockdevs

    bot posts have been moved,

    I'll not be summoning bots to this thread no more. can't promise about the rest of the yahoos here.



  • Thanks.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Except Node.js don't do shit, so you basically are screwed

    Actually, I think that's one of the greatest features of Node.js. Writing stuff in JavaScript is like modeling with feces, so if you try to make anything too complex, it will just collapse upon itself and create an unusable mountain of feces.



  • I would be kind of curious to see, for example, a facial recognition algorithm written in JavaScript. How many lines would that be? How well could it possibly work?


  • mod

    At Stir Trek last year I saw a guy do a facial recognition thingie for an iPhone-turned-robot. He used the Romotive SDK, CoreImage, and Azure to allow the thing to learn over time and associate names to faces. It was super awesome.

    It was, however, one of the panels shilling .NET (or well, Azure) as the solution to all problems instead of shilling JS as the solution to all problems, so it's not what you asked for, but it was a fun little panel. All the code from the con is supposedly on their github, but iOS code is useless to me so I'm not sure if it's there or not.



  • Well yeah, but you can run C# in Azure. So that ain't so impressive, IMO. C# has everything you need and more to do facial recognition. JavaScript has ... uh... Math and... Date.


  • mod

    He did almost all the processing on the iPhone itself, he just used Azure to store the database it generated in the cloud so he could call the panel "let's build skynet" (because somehow, many Romotive clients accessing the same shared database is the same as an advanced and murderous AI?). But half the panels were using .NET stack, and Microsoft was trying to raffle off copies of Visual studio, so it was clear where the money was coming from to pay the speakers XD



  • Maybe my problem is I don't know what Romotive is? Is it Objective-C or JavaScript?


  • mod

    Uh... looks like... native iOS app, so, Objective-C? There's too many damn buzzwords. You have to use XCode? So that's... fuck it. Apparently something as basic as "What language is this in?" is hard to find these days.

    I do absolutely no iOS development so I have no idea.

    Website: http://www.romotive.com/developers/



  • Yeah I haven't worked with Objective-C since like Mac OS 10.2, but I remember it being pretty complete.

    And to be fair, I'm not criticizing JavaScript: the entire point of the language was to be an embedded scripting language in other software products. Using it to build applications is ridiculously outside of its scope.


  • mod

    For sure. I'm working on a style guide at the moment (to document what I'd like to set our new linter to pick up) and I keep boggling at the number of things the linter has to pick up that other languages would just error out on. Like "No using variables before they're declared" and "No accidentally overwriting reserved words" (WTF does reserved even mean then?!). JS is clearly meant to do quick-and-dirty enhancements to web pages without breaking them if something fails.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @blakeyrat said:

    And fuck you for even a millisecond making me sound like Atwood.

    This is the essence of blakeyrat: "Fuck you, now please do something nice for me."

    If I had written these bots and you said that, I would probably leave them on to spite you even if I had already been planning on taking them down. That's what I was talking about in your other thread.

    I mean, be the resident crank if that's your idiom. But don't expect people not to reciprocate.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @blakeyrat said:

    Because you apparently lack even a tiny iota of human empathy.

    LOL!



  • @Yamikuronue said:

    I keep boggling at the number of things the linter has to pick up that other languages would just error out on

    Welcome to dynamic languages.

    @Yamikuronue said:

    Like "No using variables before they're declared"

    It's dynamic, declaration is only necessary to define scope. JavaScript pretends like all declarations happen at the top to avoid changing the scope of a variable in the middle of a function. Linters pick this up so the code doesn't look like it does something it doesn't, not because it won't work. That's square in the role of a linter, not an interpreter error.

    @Yamikuronue said:

    JS is clearly meant to do quick-and-dirty enhancements to web pages without breaking them if something fails.

    JS is a quite powerful language. About the only core thing it's missing is property accessors and mutators (well, missing from the set of things we can't use in reality yet). The role we want it to play is, unfortunately, doomed for failure. It's not JavaScript's fault that W3C standardization happens retrospectively - features that work well in the wild are chosen for the spec. It gives you a solid spec, but that solid spec is guaranteed to be delivered too late to make a difference. It's also not JavaScript's fault that it needs to be limited in what it can do to prevent malware.



  • The two hours is up, I'm tempted to summon Zoidberg.


  • sockdevs

    not in this thread....

    please...



  • I was tempted, just because he was being a douchecanoe.


  • Banned

    @blakeyrat said:

    Look, the forum is for discussing things. All the bots do is ruin discussions. Like they did in this thread. That's all they're for, ruining discussions. And fuck you for even a millisecond making me sound like Atwood.

    The bots are kind of annoying, but then basically everyone here is annoying, so ... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

    Still, I support

    • being on topic (plus or minus 20 percent)
    • having topic titles that accurately reflect the discussion contained therein (edit title, if needed)
    • moving extended digressions to their own topic to reduce interruptions
    • having meta discussions like this one in the meta category
    • keeping bots out of discussions unless they serve some useful purpose or are used only rarely


  • @codinghorror said:

    but then basically everyone here is annoying

    "Hello Pot, meet Kettle".



  • @loopback0 said:

    "Hello Pot, meet Kettle".

    Doubling the link seems unnecessary.



  • @chubertdev said:

    Doubling the link seems unnecessary.

    Completely unnecessary.



  • I approve. :grinning:


  • mod

    @Jaime said:

    Welcome to dynamic languages.

    Other dynamic languages, like perl, have the interpreter throw a damn error when you type something wrong, instead of dying silently.

    @Jaime said:

    declaration is only necessary to define scope

    Has nothing to do with allowing variables to be used before they're declared, or allowing them to be redeclared once declared. These are independent of static vs dynamic typing.

    @Jaime said:

    It's also not JavaScript's fault that it needs to be limited in what it can do to prevent malware.

    No, but it's JavaScript's fault that it's a terrible language full of pitfalls and traps for the unwary, and it's the JS community's fault that they idolize cowboy coding.



  • @Yamikuronue said:

    Other dynamic languages, like perl, have the interpreter throw a damn error when you type something wrong, instead of dying silently.

    @Jaime said:

    declaration is only necessary to define scope

    Has nothing to do with allowing variables to be used before they're declared, or allowing them to be redeclared once declared. These are independent of static vs dynamic typing.

    @Jaime said:

    It's also not JavaScript's fault that it needs to be limited in what it can do to prevent malware.

    No, but it's JavaScript's fault that it's a terrible language full of pitfalls and traps for the unwary, and it's the JS community's fault that they idolize cowboy coding.

    I agree with and have been cursing all of the above today.


  • sockdevs

    @chubertdev said:

    I agree with and have been cursing all of the above today.

    QFT, and I PROGRAM JS FOR FUN!



  • Do we need to call for the nice young men in their clean white coats so they can come to take you away? (haha!?)


  • sockdevs

    depends.... what are they wearing under the white coats? -drool-



  • This post is deleted!

  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @codinghorror said:

    Still, I support

    • being on topic (plus or minus 20 percent)

    Is that a configurable setting? Also, how come there's no bullet even though I put a * in the quote?


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @loopback0 said:

    "Hello Pot, meet Kettle".



  • @Yamikuronue said:

    Other dynamic languages, like perl, have the interpreter throw a damn error when you type something wrong

    Only if you use strict; otherwise, the misspelled variable, or whatever, simply springs into existence (uninitialized, of course).



  • In other words, Perl configured by an idiot!



  • AFAIK there's no configuration that enables that by default. One must actually type

    use warnings;```
    
    I start every script I write that way, but unfortunately there are many idiots who don't.


  • What's the Perl operator to shoot yourself in the foot?


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.