Bravo! I doubt programmers will escape their quest for the 'right answer' to questions with context specific answers - but it's nice to see someone with the credentials making it clear that we should try.
1,614 karma · joined August 25, 2010
Better workflow:
ls stickers/ | grep ubuntu | xargs add-to-cart
checkoutI think for any big win/viral/hits based endeavour - music, OSS, blogging, games - creating many things quickly and doubling down on whatever works is the best strategy.
As a simple test, which would have interested Alan Turing more: an old house, or a museum that shows you the nuts and bolts of code + computation so you can do it yourself?
Nginx 500...
Yes: we disagree. I write 3 lines where others see a need for new language features.
No I'm not missing the point: I show how, within a few lines, these 'missing features' disappear. e.g: constants, type annotations, objects as keys.
Adding a whole language feature to save a few lines of code - not to my taste. You don't need a new language feature to express an idea if it can be trivially expressed in the language as it stands.
Comparable to Lua? :)
I probably should have titled it "Javascript isn't a shit language, you just need to learn it" to avoid this ambiguity: I'm not claiming it's a "must learn" for modern dev ;)
Nice to take 2 quotes out of context of their explanations.
And finally, I've written a heap of Ruby, Python & AS3 and enough Clojure, Haskell and Go to be able to say: Javascript is a great little language. We use it because of history, sure, but learn how to use it before bashing it.
Fun to implement, I'd recommend having a go. Here's our terrible clojure code: https://gist.github.com/timruffles/7195405
The business impact is the same under either interpretation of course, and the conclusion would be: don't expect it to be easy to launch a business in a space where people offer free alternatives.
p.s and a link-baiter than has a loading screen on their blog that crashes Chrome on iOS
If Google started with the goal of being where it is today (self-driving cars, ubiquity), rather than to build the best search-engine possible, it'd have undoubtably failed.
"A successful startup is easy: simply build the right product in the right market with the right team, and don't forget to build it at the right speed!"
"augmenting the human condition" sounds like it'd be better achieved by writing a novel. I'm trying to imagine the person who could say their startup was "augmenting the human condition" with a straight face.
I said advise your users and trust they won't do insane things. This allows your users to patch/hack in their application code, as a temporary or exploratory thing. I didn't suggest releasing libraries that themselves monkey-patch dependencies (ugh).
You're straw-manning.