I think you guys are talking on different tracks here. jsprinkles brings up a genuine concern. However, he goes ahead and calls your skill unmatched in your domain and I respect that. Honestly, that was a bit of a shocker but I will accept this. Its one thing to be cagey with details and unscientific with your "forum" approach. But it bothers me that you go ahead and underestimate and even disrespect your audience. I can only come to the conclusion that you dont understand. Thats it, this is a very fitting response.
This is my biggest concern. This means that whenever you want to run a simple HTTP server, you need a signed certificate. Well, thats a huge hassle. So its likely shortcuts will be adopted to make HTTPS adoption more practical for everyday usage. This could lead to the weakening of the entire trust based certificate system due to the demand/pressure of scale. Ok, so now you strengthen the trust system and inadvertently untrust large parts of the unregulated internet. Great, you have just implemented tiered internet. Those who qualify for the trust based system get rewarded with access to HTTP(S) 2.0, those who do not are condemned to HTTP 1.X. Congrats guys, great foresight.
I cannot speak for dr_rezzy, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Skype network experienced more spam following a reimplementation of the Skype protocol. Having control over the behaviour of every client allows Skype the company to more tightly control the behaviour of the network, including automated/bulk messaging. A client that can be freely modified/scripted makes it harder to restrict/filter automated behaviour e.g. spam.
Its clear, closures actually solve the problem of random array access in high level languages. You are either after 1 value or all of them. These are 2 very easily optimized access patterns. Out of bounds array access isn't a constant threat.
Edit: I consider loop based programming my most essential coding pattern.
Honestly, these are quite possibly some of the most incoherent arguments I have ever seen:
"At least, I'm assuming that he's including these companies in his false-nostalgia..." - great assumption
"Where "major differences" would have been" - You seem to be reinforcing the authors point here.
"This has nothing to do with why Facebook didn't want to go public." - You totally missed the authors point here.
"He spends a couple of paragraphs decrying liquidity in markets, and then calls this a bad thing." -You might want to check the definition of decrying.
I like. Word splitting is very interesting. Today, 2012, I would be hard pressed to provide a reason to use this technique. Splitting an index is a classic complexity/resource trade off (your index has a very predictable compact footprint). Again, today, memory is cheap, wide, uniform, and predictable. Indexes are now cheap and highly specialized. Complexity can be reduced for simplicity. Index specialization now becomes natural. My point here is that this solves a class of very expensive searches with ease, leading wildcard searches et al. Also, couldnt really tell from your code (you may be doing this), but reverse your trigrams in your generated query. If ordered properly, your search will be a lot more efficient.
SPDY is here to increase efficiency between browser and server (this is sometimes called scaling). 'Dynamic network typologies' as presented is moving the network routing stack to a software CPU. Not sure I would bridge these two technologies together to solve my 'interesting worker topology patterns'. This is classic top down design.
Right, I'm not linking SPDY and "dynamic topologies". Rather, I'm linking the message-oriented communication of SPDY and 0MQ (and 0MQ is not the only way to achieve this).
Once a request enters your "back office" it should all be message oriented, over persistent connections, with flow control / QoS, and the like.
