Sorry...just been annoyed at rails lately, was drunk reading through here, and wrongly took out my personal frustrations as a diatribe against the author. I'm an asshole.
33 karma · joined February 7, 2013
I'm having a hard time understanding the need for this, especially because I'm highly suspicious of building any significant amount of abstraction on top of rails. This is because rails core is fucking insane. Besides the fact that it's in a constant state of flux, the amount of dynamic/meta/runtime fuckery that takes place makes it a living nightmare for security (and performance).
Rails already provides a highly-specific set of "convention over configuration" settings that work for most users with a basic understanding of HTTP. How exactly does this framework make those settings "better" besides re-arranging the basic set of abstractions that base rails provides (and adding more "fuckery" on top of that)?
Who is your target user group? Rails already attracts a significant number of new developers who have never worked with the web before because the abstractions are relatively easy and straightforward to understand. This is what makes rails very impressive and attractive, but, at the same time it locks a whole generation of new web developers into "the rails way" of thinking about the web (and later have to be untaught when they realize performance is actually important).
IMO If a "better" ruby web framework was to come into existence, I would encourage it to be more in touch with the basic abstractions that are already built into HTTP (see https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2616.txt) and not try to over-abstract those basic concepts so that moving among http frameworks (in ruby or other) requires significant domain knowledge.
Are there any performance benchmarks? I could see a project like this unintentionally adding 2-3x performance hits (without realizing it) due to the extra abstractions.
BTW, what the fuck is up with this book? I assume you want to sell it to me in the future so that I can learn how to "properly" use your brand new open-source framework? What the fuck is wrong with a readme and a wiki, especially if you ever considered larger open-source adoption? Are you so self-righteous that you think I should feel entitled to have the pleasure of being able to download "a preview" of your e-book in your fucking readme?
Not if it's a fucking beta
alias <name>='cd path/to/<name>'
Then you can just type: $ <name>
You can even set up an alias to add a new alias -> alias ea='vim ~/bash/alias'
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this essentially ruling that everything that you own and store in the 'cloud' doesn't belong to you in the sense that it is not subject to the same protections as other property you own?
I can see this having huge negative consequences for all US 'cloud' business.
Can someone explain what Apple 'fixing' e-book prices means and how that is illegal?
Moving from job to job is miserable. You have to ensure the company will pay for the H-1B. This has negative consequences because instead of moving to a place where you can perform better, you will often stay at the current employer and get taken advantage of.
We use: internal wiki (confluence), readme's, rdoc - javadoc - etc., PR's on github enterprise
This works pretty well. For reference we have hundreds of devs. Most of the time you can find some sort of documentation in at least one of the above locations.
I'm not worried about it. However, I may not be entirely correct in my analysis. Would be interested in feedback.
Parsing JSON for arbitrarily nested keys is nasty, and this makes it extremely natural.