Readit NewsSomehow the city with the highest average salary/cost of living usually goes unmentioned... Seattle has two huge tech companies, a lot of mid sized tech companies, and a growing startup scene... and it's not that far away from the bay.
On top of the weather, which is a big deal to a lot of people, the problem is exactly in what you said: there are two huge tech companies. And that's it.
Basically, if you move to Seattle, you are pretty much restricted to working for Microsoft or Amazon and that's it. Period. Nothing else.
It's a huge career limiting move, make sure you're okay with it.
Pardon my ignorance but I thought by now everyone agreed that Multiple inheritance was the root of all evil. (That and the others). Also I, like many, have moved towards greener pasture, such as composition over inheritance. Did I miss a train?
> Pardon my ignorance but I thought by now everyone agreed that Multiple inheritance was the root of all evil.
Hardly.
How it's implemented makes the difference. I'd say the general consensus is that C++' version of it is probably the worst (although to be fair, as much as I dislike C++, its implementation of MI has never really bothered me much in practice).
Modern languages support multiple inheritance of implementations with traits, which have a few additional restrictions compared to classes. These restrictions address some of the flaws that MI can have.
The bottom line is that you will rarely need MI and when you do, its flaws will probably not be much of a hindrance, so overall, it's a pretty overblown problem.
Look, if solnik thinks he can do Rails better than Rails, I really hope he succeeds, because I can't wait to meet the perfectly-flexible, perfectly-succinct web development framework that has the kind of support and tooling ecosystem that I enjoy with Rails.
I get it, tight coupling and forced architecture aren't ideal. I accept those limitations so I can get Rails' productivity superpowers. I don't just accept them, I embrace them, I've learned the wonderful joy of having everything you coded 6 months ago just slide right back into your mind because it didn't try to buck the convention. I spent extra time understanding that convention and why it exists when I wrote that code, I think most Rails devs don't do that, and so overcomplicate their applications.
I've been on the other side of that tradeoff, so I can see where you're coming from. There's a lot of appeal in making and using your own abstractions that fit the domain better. But the web is a complicated domain in its own right. The right approach is to use one DSL for the web, and make your own for your domain. DHH was right, Rails is your application. To do otherwise is to over-complicate your architecture.
> locked into a dated approach to the domain.
Ugh, seriously? Is this fashion or engineering?
Things get dated in engineering too.
The writing has been on the wall for Rails for a while now, we're just seeing an increasingly large number of people publicly moving on from it.
incepted commented on Functional Programming, Abstraction, and Names stephendiehl.com/posts/ab... · Posted by u/CarolineW
Interesting take but I disagree with one point:
> This style of designing abstractions is often quite foreign in programming in the large, and other schools of thought (see Gang of Four) actively encourage weaving cryptic metaphors and anthropomorphising code as a means to convey structure.
The GoF didn't try to anthropomorphize, all they wanted to do is put names on things. Sometimes, these names have some meaning (e.g. Factory pattern) and other times, they have none (e.g. the Flyweight pattern).
The important concept that the GoF book introduced was to name things. What word was used for these names matters little.
In other words, similar to what the author of this piece is trying to achieve (and he does so pretty convincingly).
incepted commented on Moving Away from Python 2 asmeurer.github.io/blog/p... · Posted by u/ngoldbaum
I have a feeling that by the time this happens, a lot of the Python developers will have moved to Go or some other language.
It's always interesting to see the only people who ever talk about JavaFX are either Oracle employees or people who have a financial interest in JavaFX, such as the author of this piece whose business is based on JavaFX.
No, thanks.