speedkills

I am not sure, maybe it is just done and they don't have any major bugs? I do know the recently open sourced go.cd continuous deployment software is planning on integrating TLB so maybe they will take over maintenance if needed.

I agree. We already have projects like http://test-load-balancer.github.io but I have a feeling I will see five more posts on he in the next year about re-inventing this wheel and yet not see a single contribution to existing solutions like tlb.

It must be a little depressing to build a really useful product you know many people need, give it away only hoping people will use it and be happy, then find out everyone would rather build their own.

But we do like to build things, it is in our nature. Plus, what looks better on your resume: 1) I migrated my teams test suite to using test load balancer in two days, saving hours every test run. 2) I contributed improvements to the open source test load balancer project. 3) I designed and implemented my own distributed test load balancing tool!

Some people do actually gather evidence in this area. The best collection of it I have found so far is the book Making Software: What Really Works and Why We Believe It.

I remember wanting an evolution keyboard mounted up to an aeron so badly back in the day but sadly I discovered them a year after they were discontinued. http://deskthority.net/photos-f62/ergonomic-keyboard-parade-...

I'm swapping between ergodox, kinesis advantage, and type matrix these days but always keeping my eye out for a better solution. Honestly the best thing I have found is a different keyboard, so these days I just keep cycling through them every few months.

I also wonder about the real need to deploy mix and match versions. I like using a mono-repo, actually continuously integrating and then blue-green deploying any set of services that has passed my acceptance criteria. Roll the full set forward, or roll them all back, but I don't want to get into a situation where due to keeping some changes and rolling back others I end up with an untested combination of services deployed.

If I had to do that then I would definitely be looking at versions message schemas, or contracts like Pact/Pacto but it seems much simpler to just deploy a full set of tested and known to work together services at once than to version each one.

Someone else referred to this pattern as a distributed monolith but I disagree. I still gain the benefits of scaling the size and number of instances of my micro services independently, but remove a lot of the burden of independent versioning and keeping track of the version compatibility matrix.

For anyone interested in a simpler path I think there is a lot of useful information in the book Continuous Delivery by Jez Humble and Paul Hammond.

Regexbuddy can be run on a Mac using Wine.

This is pretty cool. Are you planning on extending the querying ability at all? I would love to be able to use this like Hoogle, point it at my scala code and query for all methods that take a list and return an int, for example.

I found your experience closely mirrors mine with scala. At my current shop we write mostly ruby and scala. The ruby code between developers looks much more uniform than the scala code I believe due to the fact that while trying to please everyone scala hasn't yet developed much of "the scala way". I do hope this changes as I really enjoy scala. Currently my team is experimenting with style/punting tools like stylecop to try to bring a little consistency to our code. Too early to say how it will work out but I would love to hear from others how you try to bring a team style to a code base that will happily let a fully functional developer, a fully object oriented developer, a straight imperative developer, and someone who believes in mixing these things all work side by side. Mentally by giving up the possibility of nothing you have to learn everything which means loading a lot of the scala compiler up into your brain before even trying to read a bit of anyone else's code.

GitHub has done this, when rewriting their permissions code. They gave a talk about it at rubyconf 2014 and you can learn more about their experience and wrapped up the ruby code they used in a gem available at https://github.com/github/scientist

You might find it useful to read their source, the same techniques could probably be easily adapted for your usage.

Unfortunately I am heading off to work and don't have time to elaborate further but to very briefly answer your question, yes I have found differential testing to be hugely beneficial. I don't use it to replace unit tests but lean on it heavily when doing a rip and replace of a sub-system such as when I am rewriting a ruby service in scala.

Great idea, I really hope you are able to get the word out and build a community there. We need a place to talk about engineering, the part that comes down to trade offs, not just easy answers. I think that would be very constructive.

Over 300 in chrome. I have a problem.

The more I think about this, the more I like it. I badly want my vim to be multi-threaded and a separate engine, especially one that had a queue based pub/sub type interface could really open up some cool possibilities. At that point if you could give it the ability to use operational transform for the changes it would make remote editing, as well as remote pairing work really well. I know floobits is doing something similar but I would have to think this would make that much easier to pull off.

This reminds me of the now dead https://github.com/chrizel/Yzis

Even though it has been tried a few times before and never seems to catch on I really like the idea and would be down to help except I haven't coded C in 15 years and don't really have any desire to go back. I wonder if there are parts I could help with in newer languages. It's always fun to pick up a project to learn a new language.