Throwadev

It's much, much better than cmd.exe. Not even in the same league.

Plus, you can pipe objects around, which is better than piping strings, because strings are objects too. So it's a "superset of string-piping", though obviously, not a superset of bash. The syntax is weird and lots of non-intuitive stuff about PowerShell, but it's definitely at least 1,000x better than the default windows console.

What's wrong with Coffeescript?

So if you are no longer CTO, what are you? Are you quitting your company, or taking a different role? I think if you are a founder you should be willing to fix the technical problems. If you accepted the responsibility, even though you didn't want it, of being in charge of the technology, you should take the role of making sure your infrastructure can handle your traffic seriously. Don't you want your company to succeed?

Then again I can see how it would be annoying if you didn't want to do it and were just there. You are left with the decision to either leave, or embrace being CTO. So I'm interested to know what it means that you are no longer CTO. Are you staying but with a different role, or are you leaving the company altogether?

I think the relationship with the CEO sounds toxic. There's nothing worse than a coworker or employee who speaks sarcastically about the company's product, systems, or the work of others. Even worse if the person being negative is a manager or executive. If she's CEO why doesn't she do something about it? She should pull you aside and talk to you about her concerns about the servers. If her response is sarcasm, what a shitty CEO.

How long did it take from the time you deposited the BTC to when you got the USD into your bank account?

Cool. We are doing something almost identical, except in our case we are upgrading parts of an existing app. The form definitions are going into mongo very similarly to the way you describe, but we are keeping the user data in the RDBMS for now. We just don't have time at the moment to migrate both, and we also didn't trust putting the user data into mongo.

I like your sense of humor, but that's kind of mean. This is decent for being built at a hackathon. If the creators wanted to take thsi further I think analysis would move it from "OK, but what good does it do me?" to "I might use this to help find out what foods trigger my allergies/Chron's/etc."

Does this do some kind of analysis to help spot what foods might cause problems? That would be useful. Otherwise would this be any more useful than a spreadsheet?

I've used VS for a few years, and have NEVER used any of the "visual programming" stuff.

Not worth it for me. I have a very fast system (i7, 32GB, RAID 0 SSD), and ReSharper slows everything down too much to be usable. I'm not sure if it's the projects I work on -- I've used it usually on pretty large ones like Orchard CMS so that might be part of it.

And I find that this means the entire build out of the web server is scripted. Meaning at any time we always know what settings are involved, and what 3rd party dependencies should be setup and how they should be configured, ACL's, etc.

This also makes scaling the # of instances up/down literally as easy as updating a single line in a config script, or adjusting a slider in the admin portal.

Can you explain rule #3?

"Devops SHOULD work with engineering teams to come up with continuous deployment strategy that doesn’t involve the destruction and creation of fresh operating systems."

Why should one avoid a deploy process that destroys and creates an OS? Can you give an example?

I'm using MS Azure and one of the PaaS solutions is a "Cloud Service", where you give them your code and a definition file that describes what the OS should look like. They then provision you a fresh VM. Takes about 5 minutes to do a deployment. A bit time consuming but overall I find the process really convenient.

I don't know enough about STATs to get the XKCD comic. Anyone care to explain?

Something about how P < 0.05 still doesn't mean there is a link between green Jelly Beans and acne?

I use the paid version of Visual Studio and I still avoid MSTest like the plague. I used it for a couple of projects because I thought the integration would be great, but it's awful. It's really slow, even if you use it as a shell for NUnit/xUnit.

I use NUnit/xUnit, and sometimes mspec, and testing from the command line or the N/xUnit GUI is not an issue for me.

FYI, there are even attempts at getting continuous testing working via console, as soon as you save a file in VS the tests are kicked off in the console. I tried it and it "worked", but so far I haven't integrated it into my workflow yet.

You can build a scalable in C#, and if you want to avoid lock-in, put your data in an open source database (I would choose pgSQL). Windows servers aren't that much more expensive if you host in the cloud, and BizSpark makes it free for the first three years. What you want to avoid is being locked into SQL Server, and other proprietary things that get expensive.

To make it scalable you can use different types of storage where it makes sense, use CDN's, etc, all the best pratices for making it scalable.

The best argument against building in .NET would be: How easy will it be to find good developers who code in .NET?

I sometimes feel stuck in .NET. I like C#, and I use OSS alternatives and generally accomplish whatever I need to. I see projects similar to what I build by myself bungled by consulting firms that employ teams of "enterprise" developers to build .NET solutions for a company that my employer partners with. I interact with and/or follow as many of the dev's in the OSS .NET community as I can online, but I have never met another one in person. Because of that I feel like I'm alone. I don't consider myself a great developer, but I'm the best overall developer compared to all the .NET dev's I've worked with in the past decade. .NET isn't bad, but the talent pool there seems to be really poor. I don't know if the same is true in the non-.NET world. It could simply be that great developers are all working for the big & cool companies and startups. Maybe impostor syndrome keeps me from feeling like I'm good enough to jump ship over to those companies.

I think the stigma of .NET has some merit in some areas but is very exaggerated, and while it is prevalent in the dev community, it bleeds over into the business side as well. It actually even gets worse there because business users are even more prone to misinformation. Someone looking to acquire your company will say "Oh, but it's built in .NET. I heard that .NET is: slow/ is really bad / only makes websites with ugly fonts / costs 100x as much / etc." Some of the things they think are pretty ridiculous. Attribute that to the game of telephone that passes the exaggerated hatred for .NET from the technical community as information to the business side, becoming even more distorted on the biz side.

Some of the things biz guys think are rational too. For example they might be concerned about integrating your .NET stack with their ruby/java/python stack. That would be an unattractive proposal to many. Companies looking to acquire might also nix a potential deal because their CTO will be uninformed about .NET. They will automatically think the code was bad, that you're using viewstate and web controls and Sharepoint, and all the other horrible things that people hate about the .NET world. They might be worried about the licensing cost of SQL server. I see no reason to use SQL Server unless you are locked into it by an existing system.

If i were building a company right now: - I would go ahead and build in C#. - I feel like I could find good enough C# dev's if i needed to (rather pay senior dev salaries for 3 good-great C# dev's than 5-6 guys who are 1/3 as good but cost 80% as much). - I would avoid SQL Server, and just design things to be able to use non-MS techs for the critical pieces like the databases/key-value stores, etc. - I would follow the best practices for perf/scaling - I'd use a framework like ServiceStack or NancyFX.

It's been that way for at least 4 years now.

Thanks, that seems like a very thoughtful response to my question. What are your thoughts on how hard angular is to learn?

What kind of bad stuff with gum? After reading gwern i started trying out gum and it's nice. I have no cravings and never have to or want to consume more than a single gum per day. Most of the time it's a quarter or half a chiclet + headphones and a clean desk to get me into a 2-4 hour coding session.

I'm worried about if it will damage my oral health or anything though. Will it?

I haven't used either one, but can anyone who has used both shed some light on how ember.js compares WRT to ease of use / complexity?

Wondering if you can get a cheaper version and upgrade the ram and SSD yourself. You can probably get a faster SSD than what they'd include, and pay less for it.

I wish I had a good answer, but what I do is point out why we are using what we are using. When we have a disagreement about this kind of thing my way usually wins because I'm the team lead, but I wish that weren't the deciding factor in most of our tech choices. I let that particular coworker use the MS stuff on small internal tools type projects, but when it comes to longer term stuff, or things that are more central to our company, I will push for the solution I think is best.

Very accurate. One of my coworkers constantly wants to use the MS version of things that I've been using for 2-3 years already.

A better way (than showing the passwords) to make it clear that storing the passwords is insecure was in the very next sentence after the snippet you quoted.

Read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_astonishmen...

Then tell me what's better:

- Asking users to store password, and having a menu hidden in the guts of Chrome's settings that most users will never look at.

OR

- Asking users to store password, and prompting them at the same time that doing so is insecure.

Keeping in mind that the vast majority of users of this software are average, non-techies.

Right, I'm not arguing against any of that. The point is if it's going to be that insecure, Chrome should make more of an effort to make it clear. They could do this by displaying a warning alongside the prompt to save a password.

Also, just because some people will be able to access the passwords with physical access doesn't mean it's not worth doing basic/unsecure locking. I'd rather use a system where people need to have the know how to use keyloggers in order to break, over one where Joe Schmoe can walk in and take everything.

In the end I have always known the security issues with saving passwords so I don't save any banking passwords or email account passwords in any browser.

Elliottkmember is right here. Chrome's approach to this is absurd. What if you simply don't want friends, coworkers, significant others browsing your passwords? At least tell users that if they choose to save passwords in Chrome, that everyone who uses their computer, even pretty non-technical people, will be able to access those passwords. Tell them that storing their passwords in Chrome is unsafe.

Justin, can you tell us the real reason Chrome does it this way? Because the reasons you list so far don't make sense.

That was on purpose. A reference to: http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/irrelephant.

Your age is irrelephant.

Good luck finding someone to work for you for free.

These are pretty minimal for most of the work I do, but what would be nice is if they had a separate section in the docs that tracked all the cross-browser gotchas in one place (let me know if that already exists and I missed it). We are fine with abandoning IE 8. 4% of our user base uses IE8, and I think by 8-12 months from now that will have dropped to below 1-2%. Any major features that don't work, we can workaround (like using respond.js to support media queries on ie, or hacks to support placeholder attribute in IE, etc).

You could already do that with 2.x too. I did this with a site that I built using bootstrap 2.3. No one knows that site is bootstrap until I tell them we used it. We made our own bootstrap.less file that only pulled in the .less for the modules we needed, so we could minimize the bloat.

Also, bootstrap uses normalize now, not reset. This poster should make a little more effort to understand before criticizing. It's obviously a useful framework as many find it very useful. Coding and html css for a complex is not something a developer wants to do unless they have very, very good expertise in front end development. I think bootstrap is great for developers who aren't front end experts, but aren't necessarily bad developers. Maybe specializing in back end work, database, web server side stuff. Using bootstrap frees you up to focus on things that matter more for your app, and you don't have to worry about typography, typeahead, grid systems, etc. It's one of many options that satisfy this need, such as Zurb's Foundation.

Why on hackernews?