…Hmm? What do you mean "they meant to do that"?
1,805 karma · joined June 27, 2013
…Hmm? What do you mean "they meant to do that"?
Why choose the company you work for based on technology when you can choose the company you work for based on the company you will be working for?
I don't like how .NET as a platform/ecosystem/community lags on certain things that are almost taken for granted in other areas, like deployment tools and package managers. Then again, when I worked with .NET those things were my responsibility so I guess their lack affected me more than many .NET devs.
About the conclusion (one performer/many tricks), I agree in that now that responsive design is our new toy, designers can go a bit crazy with vastly different layouts for different viewports. This may distill over time to an approach that aims for one layout that more or less works for all viewports, with only small differences between them.
I'm not doing LinkedIn, though. I'm not.
Beware, beware.
But yes, do act like a professional. I guess if you can actually do a full day's work in a bathrobe then good for you, but I find the daily routine provides valuable structure to the day. I also Skype with my coworkers at least once a day so if I look like hell all the time that would probably not look great.
If they're not gonna pay you in gold get 'em to pay you in some other way. All the prestige stuff ("a seat at the table", job titles, authority, etc) isn't actually worth much anyway.
Call me crazy but this just sounds like a Java interface to me.
Edit: On further thought, I guess the difference is that in Java, the interface itself is a type. So all instances of classes which implement IShowable can be said to be of type IShowable. Whereas it seems that in Haskell a typeclass is not, itself, a type.
As an aside - this is something I've hardped on before, but I just really think it is not helpful to anyone to use examples whose names are so abstract:
ng-click="foo = 'bar'; blah(foo + bar + '!!!); shazbot = nanoo && nanoo"
This is meant as an example of something you should not do. But it's nonsense - it's quotes and semicolons separated by meaningless names. Of course that is the point, but in turn that is my point - give a better example, one that models something one may do in the real world but should not, so that the person reading the example actually understands what not to do. Instead of that, something like this: ng-click="shoppingCartId = 52; initCart(52); var myShop = new Shop();"
People know what shopping carts are. "shazbot" and "nanoo nanoo" are whimsical references to an old sitcom. Entertaining to the author, perhaps, but not helpful.I wonder about the design thing though - our code is in some ways a document of the circumstances surrounding it. Does it make sense to have it conform to some Platonic ideal, which we corrupt when we alter it to make it more testable? I'm really not sure about this, but I doubt it. Code ultimately needs to work in a given set of ways and that's our primary concern with it. Making the code "pure" (or just "easy to read" if you like) is a service to other developers who come along later. So, the tradeoff is testability for intelligibility. I can imagine a lot of scenarios where that tradeoff is a rational one.