twerquie

So much paper.

You know, it's possible to have a conversation without having an argument. It is possible to listen to others. Not everything in life, or indeed on Hacker News, is a debate to be won. Sometimes we're just sharing our human experience.

I'm not sure if you're talking about the pain of going back to testing ruby / rails after using mocha / node, but I feel that specific pain, especially on projects with old-school Rails purists who insist on Test::Unit style. Switching to rspec gives you nested describe blocks with shared setup and teardown steps, as nice as mocha. Minitest has this BDD style built in too, but somehow the way Rails ties it in makes it difficult or impossible to take advantage of.

The author has clearly framed these as personal opinions, which as we all know, everyone is entitled to.

1900s me had a fabric binder full of MSDN CDs - dozens upon dozens it seemed - with the same software footprint and a harder "download" process.

Using verb as a verb.

Agreed, it's actually a rather difficult melody.

There is a difference between web pages and web applications, and Meteor is built for the latter. There is no such thing as a progressive enhancement path in many cases. If your firewall (?) strips out JS, then you are on a broken network.

How does it do that anyway? Most sites are HTTPS.

Do you mean production support for hosted redis instances? If so, loads of companies offer this, most notably AWS through their ElasticCache service.

I can see a broader need for enterprise-level support for custom builds, perhaps.

But you can't have clients directly connecting to the database, their sockets still need to flow through an application layer where you have your business / application logic. Unless you start putting application logic into the db?

> Refactoring across the call stack is orders of magnitude easier than refactoring across a socket.

That's assuming that things haven't become deeply coupled within the "call stack". Separating things across a socket often forces a separation of concerns, which does tend to make refactoring easier.

He literally says that those who disagree with his code style should be shot. That's completely unacceptable language to use and makes him sound like he hasn't mastered English. I'm not sure anyone should take c-language style tips from such a boor.

What about testing these systems with headphones then?

I've heard it said a thousand times, but it still bears repeating; terrorism is impossible to defend against.

OP mentioned the pop/country genre, which is typically very heavy-handed with the chord progressions.

It does mean something, that Node.js has a backwards version numbering scheme. That's one of the first things the io.js people corrected in their fork (they are strict semver and started at 1.0.0).

Let's just agree to use better words starting now.

Primary/Replica?

Yeah, building web apps this way is a fad. I predict everyone will go back to full page reloads and server-rendered content.

/s

Angular

The style is best suited to server-side code where source minification is not an issue and you can enjoy the full language.

That there is no configuration is kind of the point. Close the door on the bike shed and attempt to popularize a conventional style.

If you want more control, use ESlint or jslint or jshint and define your own rules.

This is starting to pick up steam in the node community, and represents the coding style of a vast percentage of core and popular npm modules: https://github.com/feross/standard

It's not configurable, is a drop-in executable tool and supports a --format option which will attempt to reformat your code. To me it seems to be inspired by gofmt.

The reason io.js was forked, in my opinion, is because a core group of very strong contributors wanted control over Node. They gained that control by forking, giving away control of the fork to the community (open governance model) and working to make the fork a superior product.

That logic doesn't make any sense. It's like saying hey, my car costs thirty thousand dollars, why shouldn't I spend $50 on a sandwich?

And time-stretched.

Very nice. It seems to me this is the final nail in CoffeeScript's coffin - is that correct?

I guess I was just being a bit cynical, he should have stated a goal to revitalize CPAN.

> The goal is to help others, possibly learn something, and hopefully have a bit of fun

Seems like it shouldn't be limited to CPAN modules.

> What do they do in 10 years?

Where is this mystical app that gets sudden developer attention after 10 years of maintenance-free use? I've never come across a 10 year old application that hasn't been actively maintained that didn't need at least parts rewritten.

They mention large binaries on the product page enough times to make me think that they're rewriting Git.