engrenage

So your comments have nothing to do with testing in clojure or even code level automated testing in general, and this is just you telling 'most developers' that you think they should work with QA more?

Why don't you say what you are trying to accomplish? I'm curious too.

You are proposing QA as an alternative to writing tests. That makes no sense. They serve different purposes.

If you remove the word 'perfectly', you're just saying that a dedicated QA team is cheaper than writing tests.

I doubt that very much.

Don't good engineers also 'make implements', and 'tend their own gardens' when their fieldwork is done?

What's in your background that means we should care about your comment?

Why is that ever a useful question when someone is motivate to help someone else?

A QA department doesn't locate the bugs for you. They report bugs, and then developers have to repeat the procedure and investigate. This is a costly round-trip.

Automated testing is intended to be a much cheaper way to stop bugs from propagating up to QA, and it usually provides much better and more immediate information about the precise nature and location of bugs.

We normally call the people who committ this 'horrible deed', defense attorneys.

That was an absurd comment, meant to illustrate how meaningless it is to say 'anything is poisonous in the right dose' in a thread about whether the poor today are better off than the middle classes of some past era.

So all food is equivalent! Following your maxim, we can replace food stamps with an unlimited supply of strychnine and just let people choose a healthy dose for themselves.

Ubiquitous access to food that causes disease does not make 'The poor of today better of than the middle class of the past'.

The poor don't have to worry about where their next meal will come from anymore?

Richer because of a few consumer products that didn't exist in earlier eras?

I get the feeling that you didn't read what I wrote. I made no such assumption.

Mattl likes to use open source software because he thinks it encourages software sharing. I actually agree with that, and have non-trivially contributed to and consumed open source software in my work.

However I don't agree that all software should be open source because that discourages people from sharing money with programmers.

What I object to is not the idea of open source, which is a great thing. It's the fundamentalism and moralizing against anything which does not completely fit some idealogue's definition, and yet which also provides great value.

You can't fit a chesterfield sofa because the chassis isn't designed for that. Exactly like the phone ecosystem.

Presumably all available when the NSA wants it.

You can when you're in jail

Geolocated search results are hardly what it knows about you.

However knowing your motorcycle is interesting. How do you think it got that information?

I might like my car to allow me to install a chesterfield sofa as the driver's seat, but I don't complain that ford has locked down my choice of seats into a walled garden. Presumably you'd complain that you'd like to be able to sit in 'any damn seat you please' too.

You mean software that encourages money hoarding? If that's your preference, then go for it.

Personally I'd prefer to know I'm using software that encourages money sharing.

Google is a great search engine because what it knows about the web.

Google is a great advertising business because of what it knows about you.

So the first part is simply false. You're legally entitled to install whatever you like on your iPhone. Apple doesn't owe you the work to make that easy and they have not. Go ahead - hire your team.

But really, if you have the resources to hire a team to build a Mobile OS, why wouldn't you just commission hardware from someone else, rather than running it on iPhones?

Sure but then the only distinction is price, and this just becomes about getting stuff for free.

Non-programmers don't think like this.

They don't falsely imagine that they have the ability to modify the device 'as they see fit' in the first place. To do that, you'd have to do more than just 'hire a programmer'. If you really have the resources to do that, then nobody, not even Apple, is stopping you from hiring a team.

I feel as though some people spent many years doing painstaking, world class engineering work, and I paid them so that I could use it.

After I paid them they continued to support me videos and direct communication to help me use what I'd paid for, and they took seriously the problems I identified.

I'm sorry that you consider this being 'Robbed'. I had my car stolen once, and my house broken into another time, and those things didn't feel good.

If this is just about you saving $100, why all the rhetoric about walled gardens?

"Closed, locked, walled garden, proprietary, owned by carriers (false - android is restricted by carriers, not iOS)", etc.

And yet strangely, I use open source libraries on iOS all the time.

Open source is completely and utterly irrelevant to end-users. It is only meaningful if you are able to work with the source code.

The only thing stopping you from doing that is not wanting to pay the $100 developer registration.

No platform should artificially restrict development and the freedom of any app (regardless of how destructive, malicious, misleading, or harmful to the end user or any other party, it might be).

End users must be prohibited from choosing a platform which does not obey this rule.

How are you comparing the two? Snappycam is great but far from perfect, and we haven't seen results from AlgoTrim.