rafaelferreira

At first glance, the intent seems quite similar to Google's Polymer project. Hopefully they will interoperate.

Perhaps a useful compromise would be to implement W3C's ISO-8601 profile http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-datetime

Are there any reports of attacks using this vulnerability?

Pretty cool project, like a functional reinterpretation of dependency injection frameworks. The basic idea behind dependency injection is to make all dependencies for each unit explicit and externally supplied.

DI frameworks then build upon the pattern offering a declarative DSL to declare dependencies and wiring. They also offer a selection of alternatives to build dependent objects (e.g. build a fresh one when needed or supply a global instance for every dependee) and a smidgen of generic functionality via impersonation (e.g. monitoring, logging, timing, transaction acquisition/release).

Interesting that untyped functional programming and macros allow for a lighter expression of the same basic idea.

Also interesting that maps of functions are a fundamental part of the solution. There are definitions of object-orientation that amount to basically records-of-lambdas. I've long thought that there is a lot to gain by using this basic abstraction as it naturally provides seams for testing/observability/auditing/etc.

Do you have a link for the HN discussion? My google-fu failed me.

A similar project is htty, which presents an interactive console UI to make and inspect http requests.

Prior art: Smalltalk MVC. Reference: Krasner&Pope, 1990 [1]

[1] http://www.ics.uci.edu/~redmiles/ics227-SQ04/papers/KrasnerP...

The discussion on the original article is in the context of basing Http 2 on SPDY. In other words, the very community-lead process you say does not exist.

Can I run jasmine on testling?

The post starts out sending a disgruntled-employee vibe, but it improves later on. The OP conjectures about how an organization becomes more heavily political than the rest of a company are pretty interesting.

It is probably true that, even with a cross-compilation strategy, if Dart doesn't get adopted by competing browser vendors it will be a force towards fragmentation, which tends to be bad for the web.

An interesting question to consider, IMO, is whether a "clean break" for client programming languages is a bad idea outright, irrespective of context and motivation. If it is, it follows that the principal means for information dissemination and collaboration our species has devised will forever be programmed in the same language. It is a bleak thought, because, even if the language was faultless at its time, progress happens and the web needs to improve.

Of course Javascript can evolve (I personally very much like the proposals, and look forward to working with ES.next), but any language designer knows once some decisions are made there is no way to go back and revisit them.

If we allow for the possibility of a "clean break", then we can ask ourselves how could it be done. IMHO, committees don't fare all that well in language design. I think it would have to come from a single knowledgeable designer or a group of closely aligned knowledgeable designers. I also think it would be impossible to evaluate such a language without a real implementation. A real implementation would have to be in a real browser. So, a Browser vendor that employs experienced language designers seems like a good candidate to try a clean break, and I'd be glad if it succeeds.

This point might be valid in general, but it can't apply to programming languages. There is no way to do language design in a committee (one might have a shot at enhancing an existing language, but it's difficult).

I wonder why they're pursuing a proper extension of Scala. Odersky is working with a group in Stanford to make the language even more extensible, in order to enable parallel 'languages' to be implemented as domain specific languages (i.e. as libraries). This seems like a much easier and more fruitful way to popularize Oz (or something Oz-like).

Reference: http://infoscience.epfl.ch/record/150346/files/onl0000031-ch...

Can you remember from which chapter is this exercise?

Peter Van Roy's book defines it as "an execution is called nondeterministic if there is an execution state in which there is a choice of what to do next". I believe the only thing you mention that does not conform to this definition is co-routining, but I wouldn't categorise it as concurrency either (nor does the book).

Your distinction appeals to physicality, to a "real world". The author comes from a purer mathematical perspective, where it does not matter whether the code runs on silicon, is emulated by another machine, or is evaluated by humans on a blackboard.

Parallelism is purely an efficiency issue; the result of a computation does not change if run sequentially or in parallel. In other words, it only affects the cost model, not the semantics.

Concurrency means adopting some non-determinism in the semantics, either for necessity (e.g. in concurrent servers) or as a program structuring mechanism. In your example, if we are concerned with the semantics of the simulator, then there is no parallelism OTOH, if we are concerned with the semantics of the simulated code, then it's likely that we would use concurrency in it's definition (even if we "really know" that there is no underlying physical nondeterminism).

Wondering how Knockout data binding compares to Flapjax. I find the idea of bringing FRP to the browser promising, but Flapjax' choice of either a js preprocessor or a cumbersome API put me off.

Yeah, a reference to an external file would be a better way to do it. And HTML5 already has the mechanism for this sort of thing: the <link> element[1] and the "rel extensions" registry.

[1] http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/...

[2] http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/RelExtensions

Microsoft should prepare itself for a world in which the consumer computing experience will no longer be dominated by a single player. Apple, Google, Palm/HP, Blackberry, Nintendo, Sony and probably many others will grab a share of the time and money that in the past would've gone to newer Wintel PCs.

Ms should target Windows as a strong business-only brand, and this focus would probably make for a better product. It's probably wise to still play in the consumer market, with XBox and Windows Mobile and whatnot, but expecting lower margins and increased competition.

Also, please hire someone to come up with better names for your products. It's getting ridiculous.

I don't think the other players on the Java "ecosystem" will be much affected by the lawsuit. Pretty much every other Java implementation passed the JCP TCK, and so is indemnified against patent lawsuits. There might be some impact in developers mindshare, but I doubt it will be significant (most devs in the enterprise world - the only market Oracle cares about - won't even know about the lawsuit).

The best description I've seen of Kanban in a software development context is Jeff Patton's article: http://www.agileproductdesign.com/blog/2009/kanban_over_simp...