snlacks

There's a dissertation and thousands of articles(one if which this comments section links to) that go into all the minutiae of a "proper" REST implementation. My comment poses the idea that an understanding of the proper or pure implementation isn't as important as the broad concepts that you are saying define the whole idea of REST. On the crux of the argument, we are in agreement - those academic details don't really matter.

It doesn't really matter what the dissertation says. Because we don't follow dogma. REST has evolved. Whether people understand it or not isn't that important, what matters is the patterns that emerge that people are actually implementing on working applications.

I don't think it's because people are offended at the use of the word master, in this case. I think, that it's symbolic. By making a point of getting rid of the word master, you're showing that black lives matter.

What's the issue? There's two that are unavoidable.

The maximum speed of moving data from one physical place to another, moving data from the hard drive to the motherboard and the ram to the cpu/cache is faster than from the internet to a computer. To he speed of light is still noticably slow when you're making round trips to get data.

The other issue is configuration, even if automated, software needs to make decisions about how to deal with different hardware and system differences. This takes time to bootstrap after initial load increase time to usuability or it can be done on the fly slowing down the interactions.

No one's delivered? There were and are plenty of platforms for full apps on the web. All of them require: loading each time or elevated privileges above the normal browser. This is not the reason they haven't taken off. Security isn't the reason either.

It isn't used because it's just not how the suppliers of content nor consumers of the web want to use the web.

If they want a full featured app, they use it. Even with super fast speeds, latency and minimal startup time still make the browser unattractive for this.

Web users and content providers want linkable documents.

I'd argue that the modern browser stack is so good that we see installed apps adopting html/css/js for the presentation layer.

You know there's a difference between what is most likely true and what's provable in court, right? It's perfectly reasonable to see all the facts, many of which aren't permitted to be considered by a jury, and then say, "wow,these laws are messed up, they let the powerful people get away with crimes. We should change that and hold them accountable."

Likewise, it's not logically consistent to say " well, yeah it looks really bad but because a court can't prove it, I'm going to advocate they they are morally innocent. " Moral and legal aren't the same thing.

Selling off undervalued assets to the same investors while they screw over employees and small share holders?

There's no reason why "figure out what to do next" can't be a concrete task. I set up a daily schedule and I schedule reassessing and specifying more detail into my work.

Causation? Are we sure it's not being uderreported mental illness and people moving to the cities because of mental illness and addiction problems?

The anti-visual noise bias has gone too far. You remove boxes, underlines, and understandable cues like arrows, then they remove words and replace them with nonsense icons. Most UIs make no sense.

I agree with the idea that there's too much reliance on in-app education, but this post quickly starts snowballing false metaphors into an extreme of a label is bad design.

There is nothing inherently wrong with the link to the inbox saying "inbox"

Users don't know what all your iconography means.

App design isn't just graphic design or industrial design. It's not airport or device design either.

The app has two purposes, the user wants and what the app provider wants. The problems become more challenging when those two parties desires don't match. Making an app that makes it easy to buy something, take a note, edit an image, or share something with people isn't rocket science with modern OSes and Libraries. These choices are central to discussion because metrics started becoming more important than the core use.

Sometimes this makes business sense, like in a social media app where they want you to stay longer after you share. But this isn't only true because it's a crowded market. Sometimes it doesn't, where a sales app loses sales because they try too hard to move people from what people came to buy to another thing (another product, a membership, a extended warranty, a social media share).

Devs using the newest tech at start-ups, hobbies, and in their side work leads to the menegerie of today's Node Microservices Containers (or whatever) becoming tomorrow's Java 8 on Windows 2012.

Interestingly, I work at a medium sized company that is updating existing tech to microservices and the cloud because 5 years later, it seems like those are good investments that return good value in ease of configuration, deployment, etc.

I am autistic. I tend to get stuck in reading something in the context I was already thinking in.

I read the example of Blender as an example of one of many open source solutions.

Companies weigh the benefit of open source for their needs against non open source products.

A limited list of reasons they may use it include available talent (people often learn on free stuff), availability of support and consultants locally or at their price, specfic features of one tool need or not needed, availability of developers to contribute/fix bugs, desire to have input handled openly and open governed. They prefer the UI or APIs. Flexibility to integrate more openly. Desire to make a statement in support of FOSS or specific project.

Reasons why they may not us FOSS, liability (someone to blame if there's an issue, spread insurance costs), privacy when dealing with issues, availability of consultants or training at the desired price, availability of talent (many people learn paid software at school), availability of managed server farms. They prefer the UI or APIs. Available APIs that have simple integrations. Etc.

Interest? Very few people care to build medical billing software or crms for free in their spare time. So you get products that aren't as good. Even with blender, there's far better paid tools because people need money to live, so they put their efforts into things that make money.

I don't think it's an intelligence thing just what problems one's come across. Generating configs for various deployments where resources change? Generating configs for developer set up? If you start having a lot of environmental variables or private keys it might be more manageable to get them from another secure source.

I use bookmarks, but rarely for clicking from the bar. Chrome and Edge promote bookmarked sites in the nav bar suggestions when I'm typing. I usually use descriptive names of the content so I can find stuff I liked or go to often by typing a couple letters.

It makes sense to me. The previous generations had pages that had more rendering on the server and "forms." Now, it's single page applications hitting REST end points.

So before, you had complex models, tightly bound back-end controllers, sending data to a view.

Now, you have simpler APIs on the server, you arrange and manage the data in the browser, getting more data as needed.

Yeah, it's true, but I've also been in interviews where I told them I was using a tool that I think they thought was too hipster and ended up just being ahead of the curve (Babel or TypeScript, don't remember which one, both were just picking up popularity) while still being looked down on because of jQuery.

These interviews usually end and then when I look up the company 3 months later they don't exist anymore or have pivoted.

Why does it have to be simple enough for everyone to understand? We're talking building in one of the most expensive parts of the world where only the richest organizations can afford to build and it affects millions of people directly, and the state and national image. Making it easy isn't necessarily going to protect the interests of the city as a whole.

I hope they break the API and create proper namespacing. I recommend using the model from Composer/Packagist.

Mobile browsers can figure out scroll on their own, why did they do this? I wonder why websites override default browser page navigation that works just fine with broken estimations of the same functionality?

Amy Wohl's comment is true, but I've realized I can't pick out the right visual tools in any field on the computer unless I already know what I'm doing. This of course doesn't apply in a business setting where environments are set up for you.

Text based tools are easier to keep modular and advance the process. Without someone doing it, the visual environments seem to stagnate (anecdotally).

Such is often the case with apps that actually need to and/or get released.

I don't agree with all the advice, but I do think it's a good message. My favorite part is actually on pre-onboarding: "If everyone has to come in and manually set up everything, what you have is this super painful onboarding process that’s just going to bottleneck your company."

You make a valid point, it is for a different purpose. I think many people aren't arguing the actual law, on Hacker News, I feel as if the commenters are expressing their expert opinions on what it should be. I'm not an expert, but I sure do have opinions. That purpose basically reduces to "on a computer, for computer reasons." If you put a bathroom slide lock on a chicken coop to keep the chickens from getting out, that's a different purpose, but it shouldn't be a new patent.

That being said, if you had to use a newly invented screw or slide to get that chicken coop mod to work, then that probably should be patentable. Similarly, on a phone, if you invented a new means of translating that motion into a slide, or other actual invention, than that probably should be valid. Using existing touch drivers to recognize an obvious real world motion, probably not.

It's because the logic is backward from the "bad thing" that MS was doing. Microsoft was trying IE in with Windows in a way that was perceived as unfair because of the dominance of the operating system. This turned out to be unwarranted anyway, because it just turned out the only thing preventing other browsers from "winning" was being better. Also that browsers aren't really worth as monetarily as everyone thought they would be at the time.

This is the opposite. Edge requires windows 10. Complaining about new software having a dependency on something, is a bit odd. But this isn't even that. It's software built for a target platform. When you design software you pick hardware and OSes to support. Sometimes older versions are cut, just like older versions of Android don't get all the latest updates to Chrome.

Additionally, it turns out that most commercial OSes are going to be tied in with the OS, and consumers seem select OSes/devices that package the basics like this.

I didn't start with Zed's stuff, but I checked it out when I was interested in Python.

For someone like me, it would have been really fun when I was less experienced. I would have liked the repetitive challenges while I was doing them, because I would have challenged my self to go through them as fast as a I could and gamify it (though it wouldn't have been called gamification back then). It would have got me to memorize things.

His books are different, I appreciate another take on them. I would read and follow along with his books if they fit my needs now. I've recommended him a couple times to people I thought would benefit from that style.

As to his personality, I think most people are jerks sometimes, and not jerks at other times. We all have our issues. :)

Generally, I feel that all the conversations about it much more harmful to the profession than the original instances being discussed.

I guess it depends on whether we're talking spine, muscles, circulation or back-as-support for the whole body.

Standing seems like "paleo" to me. Our ancestors did it so it must be best, am I right brah? They died younger or had much worse old age, but I guess it depends on the definition of best/better as well as definition of spine.

Edit: emphasize sarcasm