ane

Yes, you're right. Perhaps my original statement was a bit too extreme in that sense. I'd wager, though, that having the screen not be back lit at least reduces sleep disruption, that is, it fares better than backlit screens in that regard. I don't know if there are any studies that have proven this to be the case though.

Plus, the article gets it wrong: the Paperwhite screen isn't backlit, the leds are oriented perpendicularly from the reading angle, so there is no direct light shining your eyes. Add that to the automatic dimming, the Paperwhite isn't going to keep you awake.

As an anecdote, I am immensely susceptible to falling asleep when reading in the dark with the Paperwhite.

Of ten. "One ... two ... [...] ten... and one and another.

It seems to me that you think designing for DI is much more complicated than it actually is. In most modern languages it is trivial to implement. Especially if you have ad-hoc polymorphism available, it comes at virtually no price. Some languages make it more difficult than others, but in most modern languages it's really easy.

Your example of getters and setters is a bit of a red herring. I understand what you mean by it, but it doesn't apply in this case. This is because the getter and setter is an abstraction that derives from encapsulation. But it is also an antipattern. In many cases, getters and setters are just a type of needless complexity--a distraction, overengineering! On the other hand, DI solves a real, practial problem, and if your language is intelligent, it is really simple to implement.

"If you know you will never change the implementation or configuration of some dependency, there is no benefit in using dependency injection.".

It all boils down to this.

Here's the catch, though: with dependencies, it is really, really hard to know whether dependency implementations change or not. What is more, in most languages, implementing dependency injection is so trivial that it is always worth it. Conversely, the work associated with changing implementations that aren't built with some form of loose coupling, that is, designing around DI, is in most cases non-trivial.

Germanic languages have a peculiarity in the words eleven and twelve, they stem from "one left" and "two left", respectively [0]. Cognates in German elf and zwölf, Swedish elv and tolv.

[0] "Cardinal Numerals: Old English from a Cross-Linguistic Perspective", http://bit.ly/1HhPzOB, page 161.

Why not? Is it in its mission to never become one?