hrabago

It’s such a nice coincidence that your path matches mine as well, going from Turbo Pascal to IntelliJ.

When I started on Java, I was disappointed at the quality of IDEs so much that I resorted to coding in Notepad instead. I was so used to the seamlessness of Borland IDEs. It was only when I did a 30-day trial of IntelliJ that I started using an IDE again.

Ten years ago, JavaScript was my go to when I wanted to expose others to coding. It still is today, but now that comes with the caveat that the most popular libraries and framework require a significant amount of prior knowledge to understand and to start using.

I haven't done this exercise in a long while, but the last time I tried to start a project from the "most current and stable releases and recommendations", I ended up not being able to get anything running. In the end, I had several hundred megabytes of libraries downloaded, a complicated configuration, and a non-working application.

Today, there are toolsets to get you started with everything and produce a running application, but it's almost totally opaque. I'm afraid to use them because the first time something breaks, I don't know if I would be able to resolve the issue.

I would still rather have a decent understanding of how things connect.

I can understand NextDoor at least. It’s very neighborhood based, and they need some way to verify that you live where you say you live. If people keep seeing membership in their neighborhood has included those who don’t love in their area, the main attraction of NextDoor will disappear.

True, but you can say that for any company. At least in this case, you can consider their past 5 years, see what moves they make and what statements they have released, and judge whether their words and matching their actions.

Artificial scarcity successfully implemented is still scarcity. For example, trading cards printed in low numbers can drive the prices for those cards high.

I have noticed this with our purchases as well. Because of Prime, most of our online purchases are Amazon-first. Only when they don't carry it do we check elsewhere.

We recently cancelled because of customer service issues with Amazon, but we are close to signing up again. I'm on the fence, but my wife just assumes we'll be back on the wagon, that it's our 'default state'. It makes me wonder whether that by itself is good or bad.

> patrons were happy knowing that this change will send more money to creators.

That could depend on how they asked patrons.

If I was asked if I were in favor of more money going to creators, I would say yes.

If I was asked if I were in favor of paying more to make this happen, I would say no. If I want to send more money to creators, I would opt for a higher patron tier.

I'm pretty sure I remember getting that far. We even figured out how to actually win. I don't remember now how we got the knowledge - this was waaay before the internet and in a third world country.

Good times.

I have a 4 yr old. They adapt well.

My kid only used to be exposed to touch screens. Her daycare then introduced them to more traditional computers with a keyboard and mouse, and they adapted fine.

Isn't this a common concern with most startups which seek to grow beyond 6, 7 or 8 figures?

A small problem is a good thing if you have lots of people with similar problems, in which case your market can grow really large.

> having users is at least some sort of reward. When you have the revolutionary breakthrough, add that to the app

Actually this approach "MVP" works well with web applications, but it doesn't work too well with mobile apps. In fact, it's quite the opposite. With mobile apps, you have to make a big splash in your launch, get most things right, and just minor tweaks once you're launched.

The alternative approach is to launch your MVP in a small and/or isolated market (a non-US country), hash it out there, and once you have your approach all figured out and your "revolutionary breakthrough" working, then do your main release worldwide.

Like others have pointed out, it is not a glorified text editor.

Keep in mind that JetBrains IDEs started not as a text editor, but as a rename utility.

So really, it's closer to an AST tool with text-editing features.

Not to mention, when they load up on all the new stuff, they try it out on fairly modern machines and it loads well enough, with a load time that's just good enough, so there's even less motivation to trim down.

I also would love to have leaner websites and less bloat, but I recognize that good enough still passes for good enough. It's only when they go past a tipping point do people pay attention, such as when iMore got called out by John Gruber.

I grew up in the Philippines knowing about the Bataan Death March. Not details, but the fact that it happened and the general idea of it. Now that I think about it, I didn't learn it at school, I learned it because it was taught to me by my older brothers and sisters, and it was likely taught to them because this is how our grandfather died.

Looking back now, I realize it was never taught to me in school. The only time I remember discussions about it was when I brought it up in a university discussion - after the teacher allowed us to research a topic of our own choosing and present on it.

The problem could be the VBA hurdle. It's enough of a hurdle that you would need an actual developer to go beyond basic functionality. At that point, a developer would just recommend you use whichever hammer the developer is holding or is most interested in at the moment.

The exception to this seems to be MS Access. I have come across multiple situations in which business users end up using MS Access for applications. I don't know if it was set up for them by developers initially, but it was clear to me that they continued to enhance it based on their needs without developer assistance.

This is definitely possible now. In fact, this is possible now even with the existing Apple TV - using the TV Out feature which many games already employ.

I wonder how many developers will stop promoting their products to other developers based solely on the subscription model? I know I would.

Also, I never would have tried their products if they were already on a subscription model. That would have been a showstopper for me. I may continue to use them now, because I'm already hooked. However, they'll probably lose a lot of potential customers who'll never give them a try just because of their pricing model.

For solving complex problems, yes.

On my own personal projects, I get very limited time. For these, I go straight to the keyboard and put in as many characters as I can.

However, every now and then I come across something beyond simple. Going in without a well designed plan ends up costing me time. Here, I take out my notebook and start sketching diagrams. I've tried this with various digital alternatives, but analog still works best for me.

I have stopped responding to Amazon recruiters because of workplace issues I keep reading about through the years. There wasn't a lot in the article that I found shocking.

I'm not saying that every department would be bad, so you could opt to continue to join them and see if you can run one of the more humane ones. Be careful though - you might not realize it if/when you slip into the ones described in the article.

> you should spend the $100. You will get it back in the first couple of days if you make a good app.

40% of mobile developers do not even reach $100 in a month [1]. Having a "good app" is not a guarantee that someone will get $100 in two days.

[1] https://www.developereconomics.com/reports/developer-economi...

I would recommend rephrasing as "What about everybody else from all the other schools?"

It may be the other way around. The older OS'es integrated too much of IE, and they reduced that coupling in Win 10.

Wait, when did this happen with AT&T?

I'm also curious - what about Windows Explorer makes it a painful experience? I learned how to use computers using DOS/Windows and it's what my idea of "correct" is. I'm curious about the other perspective.

I wonder about the other way around. I've been writing Swift since it was introduced, but since I only do iOS apps as a hobby in my spare time, I don't have 6 months experience with it yet, really only about 4 weeks.

Makes one think what constitutes a year of experience really requires.

It can also depend on how many developers will write with your framework, and how long your code is expected to live.

If the code is built on a custom in-house framework, you are putting the burden on everybody to learn it and understand it and hope they can see it the way that you can. No one will really be as invested as you in understanding the ins and outs of the framework, or the special features you added that they won't even think is available, and won't care to discover or ask about.

With a well known popular framework, not only is it likely to have more documentation available online, there will be more resources from other people blogging about solutions, workarounds, tips and tricks. There will be additional libraries built on top of the framework for common problems. There is the incentive that getting good with the framework can help them in their next project or their next job interview. Lastly, it also reduces the friction of adding new team members.

This is by design. Slides are supposed to be visual aids only. They are an accessory of the speaker, not vice versa.

When I prepare slides, I would use the notes field accompanying each slide for additional information that would be useful for someone reviewing the slides after the event. That way, I can still distribute them and get use out of them after the event, without sacrificing their effectivity during the event.

Your comment tells me you haven't used Android Studio at all, and are making up attributes based on what you assume something written in Java must be.

I use Jetbrains IDEs and Xcode every day. Whenever I have to write any significant amount of code, I switch from Xcode to Appcode.

> I'd kill for having an xCode like realtime autocomplete and documentation

From my experience, this is true for Jetbrains IDEs, and not for Xcode, particularly for autocomplete. Xcode autocomplete is a pain, and sometimes gets in the way instead of being actually helpful.

I got the impression before that the only people who really like Xcode are those that have never used any other IDE. Are you one of the exceptions?

> incomprehensible buttons everywhere that Xcode doesn't seem as feature full to them My issues with Xcode isn't the lack of buttons, it's the lack of functionality. I started with Borland IDE's for Pascal and Java, then Jetbrains IDEs for Java, JS/HTML, and now Obj C, and through those, the tool became an extension of my person. I've been using Xcode now since 2009 and I find that it still gets in the way instead of helping me translate thought into code. It's gotten better in letting me know what I might need, but still falls short of actually letting me have it.