WayneDB

Lets say we've reached this plateau where we can run these moderately limited apps almost everywhere, in a browser. Great! We've been here for some time now though, since HTTP/HTML has always run anywhere a browser could be found... All you're saying is that we have browsers in more places now. That is pretty fantastic, no kidding. There's still nothing wrong with saying that the foundation it all runs on mostly sucks for building application front ends.

What's wrong with wanting better? How awesome would it be to have a safe, well engineered browser that wasn't limited to just HTTP, HTML, CSS and Javascript?

Give me a full duplex network stack, native graphics and broader input controls. Give me file access and a multi-language runtime! Sandbox it all, I don't care!! Microsoft has done all of this (exceedingly well, in a very short time) with Silverlight which can run dynamically downloaded C#, F#, VB and Python modules on Windows, OS X and (limitedly) on Linux. It could definitely be done better by a more open group.

Thanks for your unqualified, unevidenced opinion.

You can create your own customized project template. Even the Express version of Visual Studio lets you create project/item templates.

This is a fantastic spare time project. At the very least, it will be a beautiful feather in your cap :)

I'd rather say <x-calendar/> than <div><div><div></div></div></div>.

The difference here is that I don't need a mechanic at all to get what I need from Windows because Windows is not missing many very basic features. Five years ago, if we wanted file creation timestamps in Linux, we'd have to use an alpha or beta filesystem and hire a "mechanic" to fix or even install it. That's why everybody is using Windows and that's why you hear that argument a lot.

Furthermore, if you're not using Microsoft tools to develop for Windows then you're using the wrong tools. If I go try and use Visual Studio on Linux - it won't work. Go figure.

There are all sorts of things in Ubuntu that I'd have to "completely disable" in order to make it do what I want. So what if I can pick apart the code and rebuild it? I don't ever want to do that.

Honestly - let's weigh the options here. With Windows I may have to beat the OS into submission once in a while, but I'd have even more work making Linux even fulfill the most basic requirement like...oh say, having "file creation time" stamps. (Now I know Ubuntu currently defaults to Ext4...but seriously - why did we need to wait so long for that?)

I'd rather pay Microsoft every month to use their tightly integrated, high quality computing ecosystem because it actually offers what I need with the least amount of hassle.

That's not the definition of the word "comment" at all.

Who is the authority on whether commentless code is good or not? Could this possibly be completely subjective? Hmmm.

> Oh, I know. It's very easy to add a comment...but [it] ends up being more cryptic than your code.

You don't know that :)

He really doesn't say "don't comment good code".

Reading page 141, he generally recommends that everyone should comment their code for non-trivial programs. Also, "One thing we will _not_ do is make pronouncements about how many comments a program should have."

Inline documentation done right is undeniably a massive time-saver though because you don't need to search a separate document at all. With the right editor, your documentation can also be folded into a single line or be hidden altogether.

Can you show us any concrete examples of high quality, comment-less codebases? The last (mostly) comment-less source that I read through last year was Node.js and I wouldn't exactly call that high quality or well documented.

Yes, just like that. Please show me a case where the setting is not followed because I have no clue what you're talking about nor can I find anybody complaining that it has not worked as advertised.

Furthermore, you're also free to disable the clearly labeled "Automatic Updates" service and then you can happily spend your time downloading and manually installing update packages. You can even get separate software to do this for you or even build your own.

You sure are right about one thing though. Windows is their OS...and it's a good thing too because I have just never had the time or the inclination to build my own ;)

Actually, it's even easier than that in Windows because you don't have to remember some cryptic command or package name - you can just go into search settings and flip the switch to Off.

I certainly don't need to know you or even have a "vendetta" against Apple to have a good laugh at someone complaining about SQL Server pricing when they've happily paid Apple for the privilege of running OS X.

I'm going to let you have just one more "last word" here though because that seems to be important to you. Good night, my fellow comedian :)

I wonder why Netflix even needs to stream through a web-browser anymore. It's easy to install apps on all major mobile and desktop platforms.

For native front-ends most of that work has been done for me already though. I can't remember the last time I've had to worry about performance profiling or heap management in a native front-end - and we build iOS, Android and Windows apps that process huge amounts of (medical) data. Hell, I don't even have to make my own animations to have good looking apps because that's all built into the rich native components that I use.

On native platforms - if I stick to standard, well-known, stable components and if I follow good coding practices and recommended techniques - my apps are fast by default. And I'm just gluing things together most of the time. Easy, scrumptious pie! I can save the work of "squeezing every drop of performance out of my code" for back-end processes.

Things just work for the most part - unlike the web where half the sites that try to do something "fancy" like fixed elements just serve to make scrolling slow and clunky - hence the need for this tool.

I love it. Thanks for this.

I'm so happy that I get to do mostly native apps. Building a good UI is hard enough without having to shoe-horn HTML into doing things it was never intended to do.

Feedback: IMAP and POP3 would let everyone continue to use the native apps that they know and love for their UX. The web sucks for apps. It just does. Making robust dedicated native apps for each major platform would be a real differentiator.

But despite it's gimmicks - Windows 8 is still a massive improvement.

Please, excuse me if I don't believe you in the slightest. I'm sure though, if you tried really hard, you could even attribute your imaginary profits to your use of Macs. I'd love to see some of your hipster logic in detail.

Anyway so, say you're making good money and the only product that can apparently fill your needs properly requires SQL Server....and yet you're still complaining? With all that money you have? One would think you'd be happy to even have found a product that does exactly what your business needs.

Did you wonder though why there are no products for you that run on OS X? (It's a real mind-boggler for you, I'm sure.)

I'm still laughing at the fact that you've (allegedly) spent well over $100K on overpriced Apple hardware and yet you have the audacity to complain about spending a fraction of that on some software that you actually need. Really...thanks for the entertainment :)

Actually, they do a lot right. That's why 9 out of 10 businesses on the planet use their operating system.

I sent him an email once asking for the same JSLint license that he gave to IBM (you know, the one without the "do not use this for evil" clause.)

He responded that he was getting annoyed by everybody asking for this, so it was going to cost me $100K to obtain such a license.

I responded that I only asked for that license in order to annoy him (and thanks for the confirmation that it worked), because his immature license clause is annoying everybody else.

Ummm, okay whatever you say...

Enjoy the lame Mac-based "business" infrastructure that you built. Maybe if you'd gone with Windows to begin with, like every other business on the planet - you'd have saved enough money so you wouldn't be complaining about Microsoft's server licensing costs right now.

No, they "lose" phones in bars though (twice) and do other very sneaky things. Apple is super sneaky. They also do things like making gimped software and drivers for other platforms part of their business plan. I consider this worse than astroturfing.

I'd rather pay for my entire, well-integrated operating environment and technology stack than use HTML-fail/CSS/JS or some other Frankenstein's monster cobbled together from open sores and so-called standards because...it all just works.

Well, that's your assessment of it. Plenty of small and medium sized businesses have been doing it without any problems for over a decade. Same thing with MSDN subscriptions - you're supposed to buy one sub per developer and many places simply buy one and then proceed to install Visual Studio on 20 computers.

[In the voice of Steven Wright]:

I'd like to get an email address that nobody knows. That way when I don't get any email, I won't be disappointed...

I only said one third of that. I also said that I don't think you're as restricted with intranet web apps as you are with public web apps, but I could be wrong...

Anyway - you can lie if you want to and I certainly won't judge you - but I didn't say you should lie or be a pirate. I said ignore the license. Big difference. (From your original post, it sounded to me like you probably don't have shareholders. Do you?)

Are you aware that vast numbers of small, medium and even larger size businesses are running SQL Server without the proper licenses? Are you also aware that Microsoft knowingly allows this to happen with a wink and a nod? Just like Windows and Office...until XP/2003 when they turned to activation. They didn't do that for SQL Server or many of their other products as far as I can remember. Could happen, but we'll see...

So yeah, advising you to do what millions of other business do too - I have no problem with that. (I also have no problem bribing the locals if that's the normal course of business. Don't think of me as immoral - I'm a realist. Big businesses squeeze everybody in one way or another, so if you can get away with it - it's great advice. The risk goes up the larger your company gets, obviously...)

Also, SQL Server 2012 is 100% backwards compatible with 2008 R2. So Express 2012 would definitely work (Microsoft is legendary for their backwards compatibility. Just sayin'.)

What kind of business are you running 200 Macs for anyway?

You said "...because it's not a public website, but a private web app."

So, you do not have to license it per core. You can buy the $898 standard version and a few CALs - one for your web app and the rest for db admins.

Furthermore - even if there is some wording that says "if 100 people are hitting your private web app, you have to buy 100 CALS" - just ignore it like everybody else does.

SQL Server 2012 Express allows up to 10GB databases.

Also, you should only need CALs if your private web app is using Windows Authentication to make each database request on a per-user basis.

From http://www.mssqltips.com/sqlservertip/2942/understanding-the...

"you have two choices: purchase per core licenses at $1,793 or purchase a server license at $898 and client access licenses at $209 per client."

So, if everyone is going through the web app and the web app is not using Windows Auth (you certainly don't sound like you need to use that) - You should be able to get SQL Server for ~ $1107.