Facebook has recently released a collection of C++ software modules that it uses to run the popular website.  With Facebook releasing Folly (the name it designated for the collection), more of the internal programs could become open source since they need different parts of the collection.

Jordan DeLong, a Facebook software engineer, said one concerning holdup to releasing additional work is that any open source project had to cut away from the dependencies on non-released internal collection code.

F#, which is usually pronounced as F sharp is one of the newly launched and rapidly developing programming languages.  It has recently become focus of attention due to its quick advancement to the 12^th position in the recent TIOBE index and the overall rise in popularity.

What is F#?

F# is an open source, functional and object oriented programming language which is available in cross platform. It was developed by a company called F# software foundation with help of Microsoft and other open contributors. F# runs on Linux, windows, iOS, Android and the GPUs and HTML as well. It is a mature programming language which helps the users as well as the organizations to solve the complex problems in a much simpler way with easy code. With its wide range of usage in the specialist and application areas, it is proving itself to be a worthy contender for the top 10 list.

Why choose F#?

Many individuals are looking to break into a video game designing career, and it's no surprise. A $9 billion industry, the video game designing business has appeal to gamers and non-gamers alike. High salaries and high rates of job satisfaction are typical in the field.

In order to design video games, however, you need a certain skill set. Computer programming is first on the list. While games are made using almost all languages, the most popular programming language for video games is C++, because of its object-oriented nature and because it compiles to binary. The next most popular languages for games are C and Java, but others such as C# and assembly language are also used. A strong background in math is usually required to learn these languages. Individuals wishing to design games should also have an extensive knowledge of both PCs and Macs.

There are many colleges and universities that offer classes not only in programming but also classes specifically on game design. Some of these schools have alliances with game developing companies, leading to jobs for students upon graduation. Programming video games can be lucrative. The average game designer's salary is $62,500, with $55,000 at the low end and $85,000 at the high end.

Programmers are not the only individuals needed to make a video game, however. There are multiple career paths within the gaming industry, including specialists in audio, design, production, visual arts and business.

Designing a video game can be an long, expensive process. The average budget for a modern multiplatform video game is $18-$28 million, with some high-profile games costing as much as $40 million. Making the game, from conception to sale, can take several months to several years. Some games have taken a notoriously long time to make; for example, 3D Realms' Duke Nukem Forever was announced in April 1997 and did not make it to shelves until July 2011.

Video game programmers have a high level of job satisfaction. In a March 2013 survey conducted by Game Developer magazine, 29 percent of game programmers were very satisfied with their jobs, and 39 percent were somewhat satisfied.

If you're interested in a game development career, now's the time to get moving. Take advantage of the many online resources available regarding these careers and start learning right away.

Another blanket article about the pros and cons of Direct to Consumer (D2C) isn’t needed, I know. By now, we all know the rules for how this model enters a market: its disruption fights any given sector’s established sales model, a fuzzy compromise is temporarily met, and the lean innovator always wins out in the end.

That’s exactly how it played out in the music industry when Apple and record companies created a digital storefront in iTunes to usher music sales into the online era. What now appears to have been a stopgap compromise, iTunes was the standard model for 5-6 years until consumers realized there was no point in purchasing and owning digital media when internet speeds increased and they could listen to it for free through a music streaming service.  In 2013, streaming models are the new music consumption standard. Netflix is nearly parallel in the film and TV world, though they’ve done a better job keeping it all under one roof. Apple mastered retail sales so well that the majority of Apple products, when bought in-person, are bought at an Apple store. That’s even more impressive when you consider how few Apple stores there are in the U.S. (253) compared to big box electronics stores that sell Apple products like Best Buy (1,100) Yet while some industries have implemented a D2C approach to great success, others haven’t even dipped a toe in the D2C pool, most notably the auto industry.

What got me thinking about this topic is the recent flurry of attention Tesla Motors has received for its D2C model. It all came to a head at the beginning of July when a petition on whitehouse.gov to allow Tesla to sell directly to consumers in all 50 states reached the 100,000 signatures required for administration comment. As you might imagine, many powerful car dealership owners armed with lobbyists have made a big stink about Elon Musk, Tesla’s CEO and Product Architect, choosing to sidestep the traditional supply chain and instead opting to sell directly to their customers through their website. These dealership owners say that they’re against the idea because they want to protect consumers, but the real motive is that they want to defend their right to exist (and who wouldn’t?). They essentially have a monopoly at their position in the sales process, and they want to keep it that way. More frightening for the dealerships is the possibility that once Tesla starts selling directly to consumers, so will the big three automakers, and they fear that would be the end of the road for their business. Interestingly enough, the big three flirted with the idea of D2C in the early 90’s before they were met with fierce backlash from dealerships. I’m sure the dealership community has no interest in mounting a fight like that again. 

To say that the laws preventing Tesla from selling online are peripherally relevant would be a compliment. By and large, the laws the dealerships point to fall under the umbrella of “Franchise Laws” that were put in place at the dawn of car sales to protect franchisees against manufacturers opening their own stores and undercutting the franchise that had invested so much to sell the manufacturer’s cars.  There’s certainly a need for those laws to exist, because no owner of a dealership selling Jeeps wants Chrysler to open their own dealership next door and sell them for substantially less. However, because Tesla is independently owned and isn’t currently selling their cars through any third party dealership, this law doesn’t really apply to them. Until their cars are sold through independent dealerships, they’re incapable of undercutting anyone by implementing D2C structure.