You can actually use Kotlin on iOS, look at the jetbrains samples for Kotlin/Native. You still need to use the iOS frameworks of course but all the genuinely OS independent code can be shared.
JavaFX is fully open source, it doesn't need licensing. It also supports hardware acceleration, embedded usage on Linux, animation framework etc. Also, fits well with kotlin.
Monbiot still has a regular article there, he's as far left as it gets. Maybe a holdover from the past but the Guardian is still really keen on nationalisation, regulation, state control over everything, the EU etc. The modern left doesn't argue in terms of direct state control anymore, just indirect control through vast and vague regulations.
I'm going to cut you some slack and assume you are American, young, or both.. because as a guardian reader from the 1970s onwards I can tell you this is just not correct
> George Monbiot, widely considered to be the Guardian’s most progressive columnist, has used his slot to attack a disparate group on the “left” who also happen to be harsh critics of the Guardian.
I'm not sure that refutes anything. One of the hallmarks of far left views is the intense infighting between rival factions that seems to accompany them. Far left types attacking each other despite agreeing on nearly everything is not new.
He isn't traditional left wing. I assume he's a Green Party supporter, as most of his articles are on environmental issues. To prevent environmental damage, regulation of industry is often necessary.
Support for nationalization is nowadays limited to natural monopolies, and opinion polls show it's quite popular.
EU support isn't traditionally left wing either: historically, the left wing of the Labour Party (e.g. Tony Benn, Michael Foot, Peter Shore, Barbara Castle) all opposed membership. It was a Tory government which took us in, and Margaret Thatcher campaigned for our continued membership.
>Monbiot still has a regular article there, he's as far left as it gets.
Monbiot is pretty much a social democrat. He may want to nationalise some infrastructure, but he is quite a long way away from being as far left as it gets.
Many of their competitors have been profitable for a while now. There's no incompatibility between capitalism and "real journalism", the problem with the guardian is in fact their complete disinterest in capitalism - hence being a literal trust fund baby.
Of course, they won't be able to be consistent. Will they be shutting down people who have spent years peddling lies, hate and conspiracy theories about Russians to west coast anti Trump liberals too? Obviously not.
They will do more than that. They will succeed in getting society at large to adopt the rules that solve the problems of their limited, private, superficial, and narrow speech platform.
It's very expensive. Site isolation in Chrome explodes memory pressure on the system. Language enforced confidentiality is a lot less resource intensive.
Processes? They don't need to be expensive, as proven by Linux. Trivially cheap enough to do one per site origin in a browser, anyway.
> Site isolation in Chrome explodes memory pressure on the system.
How do you figure? Code pages are shared, after all. Only duplicate heap would be an issue, but shared memory exists and can mitigate that if there's read-only data to be shared.
So what memory pressure is "exploded"?
> Language enforced confidentiality is a lot less resource intensive.
Not at all clear-cut or self-supporting. What resource(s) is it less intensive on, and what are you using to support such a claim?
CPU time is a resource, too, after all. All this software-injected mitigations and maskings aren't free.
Yes, but various things that require relocations may not be. That can include code, but definitely includes data like C++ vtables, as a simple example. Just to put a number to this, for Firefox that is several megabytes per process for vtables, after some work aimed at reducing the number.
There are ways to deal with that by using embryo processes and forking (hence after relocations) instead of starting the process directly; you end up with slightly less effective ASLR, since the forking happens after ASLR.
> So what memory pressure is "exploded"?
Caches, say. Again as a concrete example, on Mac the OS font library (CoreText) has a multi-megabyte glyph cache that is per-process. Assuming you do your text painting directly in the web renderer process (which is an assumption that is getting revisited as a result of this problem), you now end up with multiple copies of this glyph cache. And since it's in a system library, you can't easily share it (even if you ignore the complication about it not being readonly data, since it's a cache).
Just to make the numbers clear, the number of distinct origins on a "typical" web page is in the dozens because of all the ads. So a 3MB per-process overhead corresponds to something like an extra 100MB of RAM usage...
The experience of literally every browser vendor does not support your claim that it is 'trivially cheap'.
Problems worth thinking about:
Sharing jitted code across processes (including runtime-shared things like standard library APIs) - lots of effort has gone into optimizing this for V8.
Startup time due to unsharable data. Again lots of effort goes into optimizing this.
Cost of page tables per process. (This is bad on every OS I know of even if it's cheaper on some OSes).
Cost of setting up process state like page tables (perhaps small, but still not free)
Cost of context switches. For browsers with aggressive process isolation this can be a lot.
Cost of fetching content from disk cache into per-process in-memory cache. This used to be very significant in Chrome, they did something recent to optimize it. We're talking 10-40 ms per request from context switches and RPC.
Most importantly the risk of having processes OOM killed is significant and goes up the more processes you have. This is especially bad on Android and iOS but can be an issue on Linux too.
ASLR and other security mitigations also mean you're touching some pages to do relocation at startup, aren't you? You're paying that for dozens of processes now.
Those are all costs of doing multi-process at all. Once you've committed to that (which every browser vendor did long before spectre was a thing), doing it per site-origin doesn't significantly change things.
As for the actual problems, many of those are very solvable. Startup time, for example, can be nearly entirely eliminated on OS's with fork() (and those that don't have a fork need to hurry up and get one) - a trick Android leverages heavily.
Cache round-trips in chrome were historically 10-40 ms, you could see it in devtools. I have old profiles. You're thinking the optimal cost of a round-trip, not the actual cost of routing 1mb assets over an IPC pipe
That isn't "facts"! There was tons of evidence at the time that the women were lying, the charges were dropped because there was zero chance of any conviction given their behaviour. How quickly people forget!
Reasons the women were lying: the first had tweeted and texted about how happy she was to have slept with Assange. She later tried to destroy this evidence after deciding she'd been "raped", a decision that was triggered by meeting another woman he'd also slept with and getting mad she wasn't the one.
The reason Assange went to the embassy after the charges were resurrected is that it was obvious the case was a dud as it has already been dropped due to the hopeless case of the witnesses. So why did Sweden suddenly decide to try again? Assange was right to judge it as being politically motivated.
This is the first time I've encountered people using the word monopoly incorrectly like this. I'm not really minded to just roll over and accept wrong usage because a few other people object - the usage is wrong so they need to improve their English.
Also for what it's worth I don't believe the article author misunderstands the word monopoly. I think they abused it to get clicks.
