|
But how relevant is the book to the concerns of web development eight years after it was published? Because you can't write clean code in JavaScript?
Yup, headline in the form of a question. You know how that goes.
|
|
|
|
|
full-stack JavaScript application
Any combination of those words just makes we want to 
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: Because you can't write clean code in JavaScript?
Admit it, it's worse than VB3.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: Because you can't write clean code in JavaScript?
Should be a Christmas wish list for this week survey saying.
Please Santa, let my js code work for once and for all, no bug and be work any version of AngularJS, JQuery, BackBone, ...[name all the js frameworks here] 
|
|
|
|
|
I read that book years ago and really disliked it. I thought it poorly written, often self-contradicting and, worst of all, dogmatic.
Unfortunately, "his" good ideas are lost in the clutter of "his" bad ones and "his" religious-like ferver. (His in quotes since several chapter were written by other people, hence some of the inconsistency.)
|
|
|
|
|
The employee, who goes by the name of John Doe for privacy reasons, has filed a lawsuit against Google because he believes that the company’s confidentiality policies, which include an internal “spying program”. Google? Spying? Really?
|
|
|
|
|
The line which got me:
"...employees are even forbidden from discussing possible legal violations with the company’s legal advisors..."
|
|
|
|
|
From a less maliciously clickbaity site:
The lawsuit alleges that Google warns employees to not put into writing concerns about potential illegal activity within Google, even to the company’s own attorneys, because the disclosures could fall into the hands of regulators and law enforcement.
... which puts a less malicious spin on this particular item and reduces it to ligation CYA. It's almost certainly derived from the whOracle litigation; where one of the biggest clubs whOracle was using was an email from an Android Developer saying: "I think we need a license from Sun to do this."
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
So apple had the black polo-neck, and google has the blackshirts.
I like symmetry.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Enterprises are doing everything in their power to jump on the DevOps bandwagon but this journey is not all sunshine and rainbows, a recent study shows. That people are adopting it?
|
|
|
|
|
It would be really interesting if they did a survey of companies "doing DevOps" and asked them if they even knew what it meant or how to do it.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Like many things, DevOps works until it doesn't. And when it doesn't, it's such a disaster that it if it doesn't bring down any but the largest companies, it will cost them a lot of customers and money.
("...shows that companies’ road to DevOps is often blocked by an issue called the “QA wall.”"
Yeah, get rid of that actual quality assurance testing. I mean Firefox and Chrome don't... never mind.)
|
|
|
|
|
One of the most challenging aspects of selling software to developers is that many, many, many developers think, no matter what it costs, that software should be cheaper. So, 'free' as in 'big price tag'?
|
|
|
|
|
Reads like a mildly-disguised promotion of his site. No truly useful information. He basically just says "You're doing it wrong - stay tuned for more information right here on my website!"
|
|
|
|
|
That was my take on it, too.
I was waiting for him to start saying "Instead of making this or using open-source for it, you should strongly consider buying this item, from my sponsors"
Maybe he's playing canny, and waiting to pounce in his next "article".
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
You’re buying support, and innovation, and you’re buying the result of someone’s dedicated and focused time.
[biased, possibly ignorant, response follows]
Oh please. If you want support, you have to buy a support contract, separate from the software. If you want innovation, yeah, sadly, look at open source, or better yet, startup companies, or even better, crowd funding sites like Kickstarter, not the giants in the industry. They don't innovate, they buy the small, often underfunded, often debt laden, innovations, and those they can't buy, they get lawyers to sue for patent infringement.
developers often undervalue software because software sales and purchasing are unnecessarily complex.
Seriously? Who the hell needs to buy software? Visual Studio Express is free. SQL Server Express is free. Whatever flavor your Linux poison is, is free. Need Office-like tools? Free!
In fact, often the free tools are BETTER than the ones you pay for!
Many developers work embedded inside large organizations where they either have no say in software purchasing, or are poorly informed to begin with when they’re involved in the process at all.
Ridiculous. I've never experienced that (not to say that there isn't a point there.) The main thing I've experienced is that, even with all the right software, it's the processes that are hosed, and I don't mean the purchasing processes.
Where does my "computing" money go? Hardware. Laptops, routers, Internet access, peripherals, etc. Otherwise, everything else is either free or really cheap. And if we're talking about a company, you either host your own servers or pay for Azure/EC2/DigitalOcean/whatever, which can of course get expensive.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Air passengers could be subjected to a series of "shocking" incidents if security flaws in cabin entertainment systems were abused, say researchers. "Mr. Sulu: you have the helm"
OK, "The only good news is that it did not seem to be possible to cross from in-flight systems to those that control an aircraft." But still: who wrote the security for those systems? Me?
|
|
|
|
|
A new study from Veracode shows while developers’ top concerns are cyberattacks and data breaches, security testing imposes a risk to their development and deadlines. I never would have guessed.
|
|
|
|
|
Smile Vector is a Twitter bot that can make any celebrity smile. It scrapes the web for pictures of faces, and then it morphs their expressions using a deep-learning-powered neural network. "Who are you going to believe? Me, or your lying eyes?"
|
|
|
|
|
You have to be an idiot to not to see those smiles are fake!
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
Absolutely but it's more about where the technology could go than where it's currently at. It really does open a Pandora's box-load of possibilities.
Slogans aren't solutions.
|
|
|
|
|
Developers can use Project Wycheproof to test cryptographic algorithms against a library of known attacks to uncover potential weaknesses "Passing the tests does not imply that the library is secure." Oh. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
At least they are honest and realistic
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
If you’re the type of software developer who takes pride in always being the best, then you’ll work as hard as you can be good at your job. Take care that you don’t become pigeonholed, a common pitfall to success for software developers. Stop cooing at work?
|
|
|
|
|
You can also help your company feel confident about your capabilities by creating clean code. If they also believe that you can turn projects over to others, then your superiors may let you move onto other tasks.
That's hard to do when the CTO says code needs to be written in Python so it can be maintained by junior devs. And then when those junior devs are hired, they have no interest in learning the how, what and why (particularly the why, as it guided the how & what) and decide to write a lobotomized monolithic version in F#. 
The flaw in the above quote is then your superiors. How the hell is some moron that calls himself a manager my "superior" when it comes to understanding the reason for a particular architecture and implementation? The only measure he/she has is (as an example, I'm not making this up):
- The software, after being deployed in rather hostile environments (as in gaming floors) works quite well
- And after 2 years, is in fact the only software successfully deployed
- New features and hardware support, slated for the complete rewrite version, are integrated into the "old" version because the rewrite version is delayed, delayed, delayed.
- Revenue was increased by several million $$$ in 6 months simply from transaction fees because of higher usage of the equipment, because customers (gamblers) found it easier to use.
So, as usual, it's not (even) how clean the code is, it's whether there's intelligence at the higher levels to see what's in front of their noses.
Marc
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
