Hashrocket: For $30,000 they'll build your web app in three days.
hashrocket.com
hashrocket.com
That is actually the problem with many companies. The programmers are not the ones that decide which language to use. They're forced to use Java or .NET because the higher-ups want them to.
Why would you try and limit the productivity of a programming team by forcing them to use tools they may not like or tools that are weak.
I see _some_ merit about complaints about iffy low resolution handling, but the design is good.
This is a very dangerous way of thinking. You should judge people by more than "X says ..." . There are any number of competent people who think Obie is mostly blowing smoke and leaching off rails's popularity.
Obie essentially gave Zed a job when he needed one. You will never catch Zed say Obie isn't cool after that.
If you know someone at Thoughtworks, where people actually worked with him (and from where Obie left under a cloud ), talk to them to get a different opinion.
of course, the best way to judge someone is to look at their code/work with them for a while than "X says Y". You can get people saying anything about other people if you look hard enough. I wouldn't want to bet my company (or 30,000 $ for that matter) on such flimsy evidence.
And even if Zed really means it when he says "Obie is cool" , that doesn't make it right for your to bet your company on him. Quotes are no substitute for doing your own research.
NB: I don't know the numbers. However, I recall the ballpark as being around 300 dollars an hour for a software engineer, and 400K for a study on the return on investment of a marketing campaign for a retailer. The first number is according to Joel Spolsky, and the second is according to Steve Levitt. I'm aware I'm risking arguments from authority here, too.
NB: I don't know the numbers. However, I recall the ballpark as being around 300 dollars an hour for a software engineer, and 400K for a study on the return on investment of a marketing campaign for a retailer. The first number is according to Joel Spolsky, and the second is according to Steve Levitt. I'm aware I'm risking arguments from authority here, too.
But if you're on a mobile device, the issue is much more complicated obviously, and you get a pass :)
If you disqualify "laggards" as prospects, maybe you don't deserve to succeed.
And if you think that servicing one type of customer is at the expense of another, maybe you're not yet senior enough to be my vendor.
ADDENDUM:
Why is it that my hardest learned business lessons get downmodded so quickly? Who here is such a good hacker that they could afford to leave money on the table?
Worrying about the rest is a waste of time -- and new companies don't have time to waste.
This started out very simply. I can't read their "About" page at 800 x 600. wtf? An HTML <TABLE> does that automatically for crying out loud.
If they can't do the easy stuff, why should I trust them with my hard stuff?
A) Doesn't maximize my browser B) uses the bookmarks pane in my browser C) uses the history pane in my browser D) uses Flock ( http://www.flock.com/ )
then my viewing area would be in the 800x600 neighborhood.
My celltop has zoom but the best sites just have another version for it.
2007 was the first year that more laptops than desktops were sold. If you consider browser enabled cellphones, I wonder how those numbers change.