Also, transparency mode felt more "natural" in APP1 in comparison to APP3. Currently it feels like a downgrade from APP1 (unfortunately my pair of APP1 broke recently), because I used transparency a lot and it feels worse

Humans work on abstractions and I see no reason to believe that models cannot do the same

    WHERE (name LIKE :name OR :name IS NULL)
      AND (city = :city OR :city IS NULL)
      AND ...

Still, I prefer explicit SQL in webservices/microservices/etc. the code and its logic is "irrelevant" - we care only about external effects: database content, result of a db query, calls to external services (db can be considered to be nothing more than an external service). And it's easier to understand what's going on when there is one less layer of abstraction (orm)

There is also JetBrains Gateway which allows you to run IntelliJ/PyCharm/etc. remotely. I'm using it and it is very usable, however, there are occasional bugs which could be explained by synchronization issues

Btw. Vim should be very usable over ssh (especially with tmux and maybe iTerm2/other terminal integration with tmux' control mode - tmux panes are native windows, new terminal window/tab creates new tmux window/pane etc.). Why are you using VSCode over Vim for remote development?

Now compare this with JSON ecosystem

It is somewhat similar to Linq in C# although SQL there is more standardised so I like it more. Also, it would be fantastic to have in-language support for querying raw collections with SQL. Even better: to be able to transparently store collections in Sqlite.

It is always sad to see code which takes some data from db/whatever and then does simple processing using loops/stream api. SQL is much higher level and more concise language for these use cases than Java/Kotlin/Python/JavaScript

Though, personally, I prefer JSON. Probably due to superior tools (thanks to its popularity) and less-bloated syntax (it is somewhat easier for me to read raw JSON file than raw XML file).

(see `virtualisation` folder for other providers)

Then you can do something like:

    nix build .#nixosConfigurations.doImage.system.build.digitalOceanImage

Its probably best to also create separate configuration only for the image. As a bonus, its already configured, so no need to run `nixos-rebuild switch` after droplet creation. Partitioning configuration is also handled by the builded, however, filesystem choice (and partitioning schema) is limited

(I'm not saying that this is easier than out of the box support for NixOS: IMO if you are even aware how to create custom NixOS image then you are probably somewhat experienced NixOS user)

However, there are some real issues with annotations in Spring/Java: - Application will sometimes run just fine without annotation processor/interceptor. Think of `@EnableScheduling` in Spring: you won't know that `@Scheduled` is not working (because of missing `@EnableScheduling`) until you observe that method is not executed. In this case static code is a clear win. - Annotation order: not all annotation processors/interceptors in Spring support specifying order. Annotation order in the code doesn't matter: it is lost during compilation. Good luck figuring out what is applied first in a method with `@Retry`, `@Transactional` and `@Cached` - will retry be executed within transaction or each retry will have its own transaction? This also is easily solved with static code instead of annotations.

As for compile-time error vs runtime-error: personally I don't really care as long as there is any error (which is not always the case in the first example) during the build/test/init/assembly phase. When I'm writing SQL queries in the code, I'm getting SQL parsing/compilation errors during application runtime - but that's fine, because I've written SQL-s against DB execution engine. When I'm writing Spark SQL job, I'm getting errors during query planning phase - and that's also fine, because I'm writing code against Spark's execution engine. Writing annotations against "annotation execution engine" (annotation processor/interceptors) doesn't seem any different or wrong in principle. Although, there are things that could be improved.

Stacktraces: there are a few additional interceptor method calls in the stacktrace when annotations are in use, however, most of the complexity comes from library/framework structure and developer's familiarity with it. Spring covers a lot of use cases thus it has its share of complexity. I'm not sure if "Spring without annotations" would be noticeably easier to work with, although I assume that feature-parity with Spring (MVC) is not a goal of this project so it probably will be easier to understand.

Modern Java is pretty good (although Kotlin is a bit cleaner IMO), but you should really use Spring documentation (if you are using Spring) and avoid code snippets from SO/Github.

I encounter this issue pretty often and it makes code review experience miserable. It's not blocking any work, but it is frustrating enough that for any new project I would try to avoid using Gitlab

What I would recommend instead is making use of CTE (Common Table Expression), because DML (modifying queries) inside `WITH` are allowed and taking leverage of `RETURNING` keyword in both `UPDATE` and `INSERT` we can execute multiple inter-dependent updates within single query.

With such approach we can trivially run multiple versions of an application in parallel (during deployment, for canary deployment etc.) and we have similar performance advantage of a single roundtrip to database. Additional advantage is the fact that there is only one statement which means that our query will see consistent database view (with very common read committed isolation level it is easy to introduce race conditions unless optimistic locking is used carefully).

Also, some applications on MacOS are sandboxed, IIRC Mail is one of them. Also, some (all?) applications installed from AppStore. That's the reason I prefer installing applications from AppStore: they seem to be at least somewhat sandboxed.

For development, I try as much as possible to leverage remote development via [JetBrains Gateway](https://www.jetbrains.com/remote-development/gateway/) and [JetBrains Fleet](https://www.jetbrains.com/fleet/). VSCode also has remote development but they explicitly assume that remote machine is trusted (in the security note in the remote extension plugin readme). In the case of JetBrains tools I have not seen any explicit declaration whether remote host is trusted (as in: if remote machine is pwnd then we may as well let pwn your personal machine), but at a glance it seems like there are minimal precautions (if you run web application and open it in a browser, the Gateway will ask if you want to be redirected to a browser etc.)

Probably best scenario for such remote development clients on MacOS would be to put them in AppStore: this way they could leverage sandboxing and in the case of thin client, the sandboxing likely won't limit functionality.