fadzlan

What's wrong with that? If the SDK is easy enough to jump in, why not?

I'm interested on reading the draft of the act. Can you share on the link that you got of the draft, if any?

Have you actually spent a little moment to at least really RTA?

The author states that even with the restriction lifted, it wouldn't make much sense, as with all the extension that it requires to meet the author's need it would take 4GB.

The situation would be pretty much the same in Android, despite it being rooted in Linux. The article is not so much about Apple as it is about LaTeX.

If you would like to make a point, at least read the article.

Kinda explains.

I am hoping for a more detailed discussions on which case writing test first hinders productivity.

Being dogmatic and using One True Approach for everything is not good, but if we were to advance ourselves, we need to be able to define what is good and what is bad specifically. Then, fruitful discussion can follows.

Blanket accusation like this would not help no one and is just crying for attention, IMO.

This kinda remind me of a lunch that I have with an old friend. I was asking him (he works at a fairly large company) if he knows anybody who learns or codes stuff that is outside of their working area, and his answer is, possibly in the whole building that he works, there isn't another one.

Myself being a optimist, I don't believe that statement, there is probably someone. It has to be. Then again it could just be my wishful thinking.

Well, this does not address one of his core argument, which is basically coding for average Java developer is just one small part from his/her day activity.

Especially in the case of maintenance of existing legacy system, where most of the activity resolves around understanding existing code, writing is just a small part of it. If maintaining the system needs to be financially feasible, hiring expensive Scala developer may not be the best idea to maintain the system. Unless of course, using Scala outweights the benefits of using Java even with the potential financial cost.

To be fair, not all people who use OO languages 'gets' it. They still get things done (there are a lot of simple things in the market) and although their works are not in the excellant range, it is good enough and they do come by much cheaper.

When resources are cheap, things get less risky in a way since people are much more easily replaceable.

Now, I do not condone or even like to work at those kind of places, but that is just the reality in most places.

Verified can mean a lot of things.

It can mean it comes from a source your trust.

Or it can mean you trust it to do something that you know and only that.

Which one do you refer?

The only way to verify behavior of codes is to do source auditing yourself. Which is what our average Joes would not be able to do himself anyway, so you get back having to trust entities instead of behavior. Which in that case, we are either get back to CAs or trusting individual certs directly.

To that point, what is the difference :-

1. just trusting the cert say for Amazon directly rather than trusting the chain of trust using CA (distrust all the root CA and just trust the cert of Amazon)

between

2. Trusting verified Javascript directly.

Although I don't really appreciates the tone here, I think that point that you are trying to make is that, if we are just going to use plugin, just use plugin all the way; why bother with Javascript for crypto at all.

That said, as other commenter has mentioned, should the server be compromised, the JS crypto lib may be overwritten with something else that steals the decrypted content in the browser.

The thing is, the browser still depends on the server for the crypto implementation EVERYTIME the user logs in to use the application.

Native application also suffers from this, since any downloads of the native apps still depends on the hosting server not being compromised. However, the vulnerability only applicable when the application is being download, instead of over and over again in each time of usage as in the case of web application.

The only way I can think of is of using extensions. In this manner the trust issue happen once during the download of said extension. By doing this, the implementation would be almost as secure as native application.

Almost as secure, because web pages are still content+execution. For the solution to be secure, the pages needs to be secure itself, since other Javascripts or the implementation of the web app could may not protect the user from XSS based attack.(You could say the same about native apps though, as the security depends on how secure is the codes against things like buffer overflow).

I personally thinks that it would be the best bet right now.

Quite frankly, a client who pays is a client. A "client" who don't pay is not a client in my book, hence are not entitled the privilege that a client-contractor normally has.

Considering he release something that he created on his own from SCRATCH, he can release it all he wants since all the code belongs to him. In this case, he is doing something within his rights.

If his work is derived from the "client" codebase, then its an entirely different case.

Just because everyone in the world has the right has to be parents, it doesn't mean that it is right for them to be irresponsible.

Of course, in that case, if you want to argue, they have all their rights to be irresponsible as well as long as they don't break the law.

Now, if the society has come to this point that they value irresponsibility so much so that they argue for it, then we have gone a long way down then.

Some people excel.... on well... giving good interviews.

Back then, I used to believe that people know what they are doing, but since I've lived long enough know, maybe not.

You gotta be careful, people like that will come to personality attack when push come to shove. When facts are against them, it is now time to yell.

I am not sure how well LPGL works for iOS, since you need to compile it as single executable without dynamic linking to 3rd party libraries, hence need to provide the source.

Can we have LGPL with exception for iOS?

While that is true, I think the looting cases there could be viewed as an exception, as compared to widespread looting that happens just after natural disaster anywhere else in the world.

Well, if the author is in contact with the advertiser directly and are selling impression instead of clicks, then why yes, of course the advertiser would be okay with it. Its like TV hosting the ad of the advertiser for a period of time. If the TV wants to tell people buy the advertiser product, then most of the advertiser wouldn't mind.

If however, say KFC is advertising on the TV, and instead of impression, they are taking a cut whenever someone who watched the TV goes to KFC, then the situation would be very different. Which is the case of Google, where each click has a cost.

My advice to him, instead of depending on Google, just get the advertisers directly and just charge by impression, or at least a fix charge for a period of time. Since there are value in the stuff he is doing, I would believe that there would be advertisers willing to pay anyway, just a matter how much.

The only downside going that way, now he has to do the marketing to potential advertisers as well, as opposed to Google doing it for him previously.

Application that depends on the native browser of the iPhone, such as PhoneGap based application, has severe limitation imposed by Apple on how much memory they can take.

So far, I have downloaded several applications, mostly which I don't really need, to test the experience of PhoneGap based application. I should say, given the limitation, its quite impressive. However, if you are being really picky, its easy to notice if you have say, a list on the application, scrolling the list after the view is opened (even if its the second time), the scrolling isn't so smooth and stutter a bit.

Of course, for normal people (aka non-developers), they may not notice, much else know if it is a PhoneGap application or not.

For something as personal as a mobile phone. I am not surprised.

For a start, not everyone wants a phone everyone else have. And since Apple only come out with one model of iPhone every year, well...

Well, one of the reason of this problem, is that when you have a bad manager, there are two ways of getting the manager to the door, that is up, or down.

Making him go down is quite hard. You have to build your case against him/her, and it will take quite some time. Plus, if you do such good job at your work that he can take the credit from, this may not be easy. Then again, if the situation is not okay in your job (because of him), it won't be any easy either. That is not counting his/her personal/political skills yet.

On the other hand, making him going up the ladder is much easier. Assuming that you are good at your job, so much that he can take credit from and then doing good reviews of him when you can, there is a good chance that he'll be promoted. While he will leave a train wreck somewhere else, he would leave you in peace, at least for now.

For that reason alone, I guess that is the reason why bad managers can go to the top, at least where incompetence would not have much effect on the bottom line. (ie. monopoly, having good people on the operational line, etc)

>> It started out as a small project.

They'd always said that. Then at midway, suddenly "we need the money, and there is this client willing to pay if we make it such and such. It shouldn't be that hard eh? I know you can do it". On and on.

Till this day, if anyone says "I know you can do it", my alert level would increase.

To me, what made it easy for me to quit, was the fact that my boss didn't not want to spend any money on sales to sell the finished product, when all this while he had been spending money on the development of the product. For all the talk of "I am being most loyal to the company" and "I sacrificed a lot for the company", he hesitated on doing the final push.

As naive as I was, I suddenly discovered it would be stupid for me to stay. That made it easy.

>> You feel guilty if you go home to sleep while your friends are coding 'til their eyes bleed, even when the overwork is brought about by extrinsic factors (see above).

Been through that at the early stage of my career. It was a startup too. Right now if anybody trying to pull that out with me, its not going to happen again. If they should hire more people but not hiring, then its their problem. I'm not staying more than I should, and if I put on extra time (funny that I still do this a lot, I guess I just love what I do), its on my terms. Not happy, then let me know when to quit.

I also found out that when you go through the extra mile a lot, without proper compensation, they will treat you cheap. In a way, its sort of true, since if we put more effort that we are paid for, then we are cheap in that sense. Its easier to get respect when you just stick to your guns and politely declined those request for extra effort unless its paid up for. You may not get what you demanded, but its easier for them to treat you with respect (oddly!).

The lesson that I learned from my version of failed startup is that you should have the funder/entrepreneur to know the trade. Warren Buffet says never invest on anything that you do not understand. If the funder/investor/entrepreneur does not know the trade, then there is no way they could tell that you are telling the truth, other than pushing your buttons. And they will push your buttons, as much as they can get away with.

Its a good lesson learned, and I'm glad I'm through. But there is no way I am going through that again.

That is not so bad. Without fear, there would be no feeling like adventurous, which is a kind of feeling when you DO overcome fear.

Regardless of semantic, I would argue that when you are really, really hate what you are doing, depression is not a surprising outcome.

While it is true that influence and recognition can be earned by hard work, it is also true that influence and recognition can be earned by being political and other sneaky means as well.

When enough people do that, you will loathe yourself to no end. Staying would require a really big enough reason.

I agree on your argument on the patient/impatient. However, I would argue that being impatient is not necessarily a bad trait in this case.

It is quite common to have reports, BI tools and other applications going through your database, so now you have to do the checks on different fronts.

And another very important point, applications errors can be hard to fix, but Terabytes of inconsistent data over the years that your business depends on, now that's nightmare.