manuscreationis

Run

If it wasn't readily apparent how little you "got it" before this post, saying "We just don't work hard enough" destroys any credibility you may have here.

Sorry, but there's a difference between "working hard" to make sure your site looks good and functions across as many browsers as you can, and wasting hours of your valuable time that could be better spent elsewhere, trying to get older versions of IE to show things properly without damaging all the other browsers.

Spoken like someone who has never had to spend hours and days toying with a single design element to get it to work in older versions of IE.

HasLayout?

BoxModel?

These are not things that allow for "graceful degradation"

These things are horrible aberrations birthed forth from hells bowels designed to destroy any chance of having a single, concise, clear approach to CSS and HTML when trying to be backwards compatible.

I'm sorry, but it's time for browsers of a certain age to die off. There is no elitism here; Newer browsers are irrefutably better in every way than the old dregs of IEs growing pains.

Too many man hours are wasted on trying to get things to work in these old browsers, and it simply is not worth it.

This isn't elitism, it's sanity.

I guess my only rebuttal, not to be "that guy", is to remind you it's a free service, and you are in no way compelled to use it. There are alternatives, regardless of how widespread or popular they are, and you're free to use (or not use) any or all of them.

That said, I definitely won't be happy to see Ads popping up in Skype, but I use it so infrequently, it barely impacts me.

Additionally, I'd avoid throwing around grandiose statements about how benevolent you'd be if you had the resources for it. We'd all be out saving the world if time/resources/etc weren't an issue.

I will say, the way the article is worded, you could take from it that Skype might be trying to parse your active conversation to offer up contextually relevant ads, which to some people would be incredibly invasive, not to mention prone to displaying insensitive ads...

Imagine a grieving mother talking about the recent loss of her son, and the ads being offered up are for childrens' clothes or child friendly activities.

Over all though, it's just one more spot they're putting ads on. By now, this is nothing new.

I would feel better about the "Detailed Quality Checks" if that very same point didn't have an improperly formed </li> closing tag poking through...

I wonder if they'll have an employee spend months in a room designing the perfect pizza box opening experience...

Clean, minimalist design

Notches to facilitate stacking while preventing damage

No cheese on the cover

Pizza does not shift while in transit

Easy to lift and re-close cover without damaging pizza crust

Box stays warm but doesn't get too hot

Channels delicious pizza smell directly outward toward consumer

Thats what I figure - which is why I think a carefully tempered response is the right one at first.

But even if all you want is a size 6 mention, and he doesn't acknowledge or give you credit for your work, you should be prepared to make sure he does not make a habit of this kind of thing.

If you feel like hes really copied your work without giving you credit, approach him over email or twitter privately, and ask him to rectify it.

Make sure you keep a copy of the original, infringing slideshow of his, incase he tries to change it after the fact and cover things up.

If he is uncooperative or unresponsive, escalate the issue. Take it to other members of the MS team on twitter, on fb, etc etc. Avoid direct attacks on this persons character, and instead make sure to frame it as you, the original author, just wanting his proper credit. If you can build up pressure, at the very least he'll be shamed away from doing this sort of thing again.

But try to reach out to him in a professional, non threatening manner first. You might be surprised by the response you get

Pretty cool, but I wonder how effective this becomes under large projects with hundreds of files.

Definitely an interesting idea.

If you have a 64bit PC, use the one with 64bit on it. If not, use the "Regular" one.

If you're unsure if you're 32bit or 64bit, right click on "My Computer" and go to properties. In there the OS will identify itself with 32 or 64bit.

There is a bit of an issue amongst the Python community about support between 2.7.x and 3.x.x

Lots of things still only target/support the 2.7 releases, and 3.x.x stuff is only slowing coming around.

I had read (via a link here on HN months ago) someone explaining that Python used to have a solid versioning strategy for these changes, but I'll have to leave it up to those more qualified to explain exactly what the issues behind 3.x.x adoption are.

It's definitely a pain, as I always want to install the newer version, but practically every library I want to use seems to target 2.7

Also, on that Python download page, they actually do tell you which one to use if you're not sure:

"If you don't know which version to use, start with Python 2.7; more existing third party software is compatible with Python 2 than Python 3 right now."

It's just above the download links.

That isn't the point.

No one here is saying that users shouldn't have better password policies. They should.

What is being said is that having a devil-may-care attitude toward safe guarding your users account data is not ok.

If you use your bank password for anything other than your bank, you're clearly not taking security seriously.

If you think you shouldn't have to properly secure user account information, you're clearly not taking security seriously.

Both parties can be wrong, but that doesn't excuse either side.

I would definitely say it's the responsibility of the application developer to secure user account information, in addition to being the nice/right thing to do.

Thanks for posting this. Never heard of it before, but will be taking a look at it now.

Since you made the same comment more than once in this thread, I'll reply to you here as well.

This attitude is absolutely not ok. You need to make sure the security of users accounts if a top priority, even if your app is 100% trivial in nature.

You really need to re-think this attitude toward security.

It is absolutely your responsibility, as the developer of your application, to make security of user accounts an absolute priority.

It doesn't matter what the purpose of your website is - if you're having users create accounts, you need to secure them as best as you can. It's not ok for you to classify users who have poor password practice as "Bozos".

These are your users - your customers - the people who give your application a purpose. Treat them with respect, or let them find someone who will.

I would imagine it should be trivial to have the application automatically switch a user over to ssl when attempting to login, as a lot of applications do this.

Maybe it's PGs way of teaching people to think about security by making it something they need to "opt-in" to, but that seems like a fairly strange line in the sand to draw.

This is probably the worst possible response anyone could give with a question like this.

I sincerely hope you're either joking, or in no way responsible for the security of user accounts wherever you happen to be employed.

>The whole point of objectify is that it actually makes it pretty reasonable to work this way right off the jump. I would have a hard time believing that it's really any more work to build an objectify app than it is to build a vanilla rails app - at least once you become accustomed to the paradigm.

Sure. I wasn't saying otherwise. What I meant was, in a general sense (prior to really seeing the benefits first hand), it can be hard for people to justify the trade off when they feel like they can just "get it done faster" with a more ad-hoc approach to things. I didn't mean to imply Objectify was some how more difficult (I haven't used it, so I wouldn't dare comment on it in such a way).

>I don't buy that. My project has hundreds of single method classes and it's by far the best factored non-trivial application I've ever seen (anecdotal, obviously, but so it goes).

Agree to disagree, with a caveat. I'm not against having a large amount of "Helper" or in the case of what I'm most familiar with, "Extension" classes (godbless you, .NET Extension classes), but I think if you have so many that they comprise most of your code base, maybe you could consolidate some of them (and maybe you couldn't).

Personally, I try to keep 100% of my core business logic inside of "Service" style classes, and then anything that is more of a helper (in that it performs some work, but not "business logic", and does not require or alter internal state) in either a static helper, or an Extension on the type itself.

For example, I usually end up adding a .ToStart/EndOfDay/Week/Month suite of methods to the datetime object of most of my projects. A "DateTime Service" would be overkill, but an extension method (which is just veneer over a static helper) fits the model perfectly, in that it returns a new copy of the existing datetime, leaving the original intact.

But at this point we're getting pretty deep into the comment tree, so feel free to email me from my profile if you want to go more into the issue - I love shooting the shit over this kind of stuff. Regardless of any minor difference of opinions, I think what you're trying to bring to the rails community is to be commended.

When I was first trying to learn about rails, I asked a friend who had been developing in it for a while about things like DI, and separation of concerns. He told me that those were things you used in Java and .Net because the languages just weren't as... I'm struggling to remember the exact term he used, but essentially "open" or "un-restricted".

He echoed the phrase I've seen elsewhere "Ruby just doesn't need that".

I disagreed with him then, and still do. People like to claim that OOP breeds cargo cult programming and overly cumbersome abstractions upon abstractions (and it can), but some times you really do need that kind of approach to make a large scale project testable and maintainable.

I'm glad to see there are Ruby devs who can see the value in using these kind of approaches. I honestly believe it's the kind of thing you think is a major waste of time, until you are shown the benefit first hand, and you experience the change. Then you start to understand that by spending a significant deal of time up front building your infrastructure, you can save a lot of time down the road.

I know that's how it was for me years back.

> Is not instantiation etc a cross-cutting concern that violates SRP in this instance?

Right.

Which is why hes also recommending the use of DI.

It's hard to strike a balance between a strong design which takes a lot of time to work within, and one that just allows you to get things done, but once your project begins to grow in size and complexity, and testing becomes even more important, these things really do start to matter.

It's difficult to internalize until it's bitten you on the ass, hard.

That said, if you have a large amount of single method classes, you might need to take a look at why you need them and find a better approach (which will vary from project to project).

I'd agree that the check mark could be a little less dramatic.

It's not bad.

When I saw it before going to the site, I said to myself "This should be the logo of a company that is offering assurance or 'verifying' something for the check mark to be so prominent", and I'm glad I was right.

I think it works for what you're doing, but I wouldn't say it sweeps me off my feet. I think you could leverage the V-check mark in a lot of ways, however, like you have on your globe.

In my un-qualified opinion: B+

Cool, thanks for the tip

I agree the "micro" benchmark isn't something people should look to as a definitive answer, but I don't think they should be outright dismissed either. If nothing else, they should be a jumping off point for real testing.

Seeing these numbers (although as the author states, the data needs to be taken with a grain of salt since he didn't try to set up a more "proper" test environment) really makes me want to take a serious look at vert.x, but what you mention here is my main concern.

Node is a joy to use because of the NPM, and all the available libraries. I'd hate to lose that.

That said, so long as it has a solid websocket api, and I can do routing in it like I would express, I'd give this framework a shot

All great advice

This might be an unpopular opinion, but skipping college could turn out to be a big mistake for you. I know you say you're deferring for a year, but lets get real: A year turns into 2 years, turns into 3 years, turns into "Well, I just started working and never got the chance..." (More on this, later).

And I'm not saying this because I think you'll learn one particular thing at the university (doesn't matter which) that will set your life straight, but it's the experiences you'll have and the people you'll meet. If anything, everything I learned in school, I pretty much taught myself. What school provided most for me was the opportunity, and eventually the ability, to move towards self-sufficiency in a number of areas.

If you're going to be jumping into living on your own and don't have the chance to live with friends (If you're working near where some friends are going to school, you could live with them, and get some of the experience they'll have, as well as save some money and have a lot more fun), then be aware you're about to have a hell of a lot more responsibility on your shoulders. It sounds silly and obvious, but no boss in their right mind will accept an answer like "Well, I can't come in today because I've kinda been slacking on my laundry and I don't have anything to wear." One of the great things those few years living on your own, while still in a "safe" environment like school will teach you, is a proper respect for having to take care of yourself, because no one else will do it, and whats expected of you , generally, rises gradually so that you can adjust to it as you need to.

All that said, so long as you're a bright person, able to teach yourself new things, and have a positive attitude toward what you're doing, there isn't much college will do for you in our field that a solid few years of life experience won't, with some small exceptions (There is a very real and very "heavy" academic side to what we do, and you could gain a lot of insight and knowledge from being exposed to it, but that sort of thing isn't for everyone).

As for the time slipping away from you - be prepared for that to happen. Especially with start ups. Depending on how early this start up is, you could be doing a lot of work and wearing a great deal of hats. This is not a bad thing, but for someone young, the level of responsibility can be intoxicating. Be careful not to lose yourself in your work, and always remember: It's just a job.

For more on the harrowing details of how a startup can fail, read this memoir I wrote that I shamelessly (and anonymously) plug: http://lookingbackaretrospective.posterous.com

These are all my opinions - Take them at their worth and just do what you feel is best for you.

Just don't forget to take time for yourself.

Well, shit.

This is all I'm going to be doing today...