dhh

8 ms·

31.
by dhh 14y ago
J2EE's sins include far more than just EJB. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_Platform,_Enterprise_Editi... . Servlets got just started running with a bad crowd, even though deep down it was a good kid.
32.
by dhh 14y ago
Let me translate it for you, then. Wankery: Complexity brought on by the love of an abstract idea without meaningful practical benefit. By definition I don't see the point in architectural exploits that can be labelled wankery.
33.
by dhh 14y ago
Not every new architectural idea is a good one. Lots fell by the wayside over the years. See J2EE or Naked Objects (I actually kinda liked that one). Bad ideas fail faster when criticism is brought forward which opens the floor to new, bett
34.
by dhh 14y ago
That's essentially my beef with most query objects. Wrapping a query in an object like that is usually too much ceremony for something that's just a method. It doesn't get any better by having Viewer.new(current_account.posts, current_user)
35.
by dhh 14y ago
That's exactly the idea.
36.
by dhh 14y ago
We built Basecamp while I was working from Copenhagen, Denmark. I currently live and work and wrote that piece from Spain. Out of some 35 people, only about a third has base in Chicago. Out of that third, maybe half of them go to the office
37.
by dhh 14y ago
I apologize for not getting back to you. That's not cool in general and triple uncool when you've out this much effort into it. I will make sure we write back to all applicants in the future to let them know when we've made a decision (this
38.
by dhh 14y ago
You TDD your goals. Square could certainly have started with modest goals, like we did with Basecamp, such as "get to $4K/month in revenues". That probably wouldn't have floated for them, given all the VC they took. But there are many grays
39.
by dhh 14y ago
That's like saying your first test would be "complete project management system". That's not what you do. My first test for driving was "gentleman mid-pack", for biz, it was "$4K/month revenue". For Basecamp, the first test was probably "ad
40.
by dhh 14y ago
You're right that if your server is very slow at generating the response, turbolinks is not going to add much in terms of perceived performance. Same is true if you download multi-megabyte pages. So don't use it for either of those cases! W
41.
by dhh 14y ago
Correct. You can opt-out links with data-no-turbolink. Or, of course, you can opt out of the whole thing by removing the turbolinks gem from your Gemfile.
42.
by dhh 14y ago
This is now fixed.
43.
by dhh 14y ago
Rails is great for fat-client JS apps as it stands today. Everything on the controller and model side of things makes for a wonderful backend for fat-client JS apps. But if you're going to use Rails for the view, the focus will remain on ma
44.
by dhh 14y ago
If you don't flush every line, you'll lose lines in a crash. You often need those lines when trying to debug such a problem, so that's the worst possible time to lose said lines. We added tagged logging to deal with the "not in order" probl
45.
by dhh 14y ago
Emails are like async views. The model should not be responsible for rendering views. That's the responsibility of the controller. Which is why Action Mailer itself is modelled on Action Controller, uses Action View, and so forth.
46.
by dhh 14y ago
Don't change a thing, mate.
47.
by dhh 14y ago
I used it as an example of what people who just modify an existing code base would use. Not Wordpress, the product, itself. I'm sure that's nicely done.
48.
by dhh 14y ago
You have no idea? You launched wild accusations that we were just playing everyone with our proposal and that we actually just had a buyer all along. If we had a buyer at $480K, we would not have bothered listing it again. We would just hav
49.
by dhh 14y ago
Bitter? No. Offended? Sure. We share everything that's going on with the sale. Multiple write-ups. And yet still the default HN hive-mind behavior is to jump to a conspiracy theory!? Come on.
50.
by dhh 14y ago
Here's another wild theory: The buyers contacted us directly, got the answers to the questions they sought, and closed the deal. Also, this is not out of the blue. We lost interest in considering all sorts of complicated deals a while back.
51.
by dhh 14y ago
Yeah, you got us figured out. We had an offer, sat on it, invented this story to see if we could get more, and played the world for a fool. BUT YOU BUSTED US. OH NOOOOES! Or, of course, the simpler explanation: We thought the site was worth
52.
by dhh 14y ago
Yes, despite the HN peanut gallery's perception of the world, there is actually a market for profitable businesses. It's surely less exciting than selling your no-revenue photo service for a billion dollars, but that's ok. We'll be sure to
53.
by dhh 14y ago
You're behind the times. We jumped the shark seven years ago: http://37signals.com/svn/archives2/have_we_jumped_the_shark.... .
54.
by dhh 15y ago
This is exactly the point of the original post. That if you're willing to redo Rails because a predicate method does not return singletons, you're a rookie who don't know the value of time. Of course, people don't actually do this. They tal
55.
by dhh 15y ago
Dude, that's deep. You're bike shedding the bike shed. So meta. Turtles all the way down. Touché!
56.
by dhh 15y ago
You're a real charmer, aren't you? We can't wait to have you as a customer!
57.
by dhh 15y ago
We weren't happy with the time tracking integration in Classic. It was usable, but it wasn't great. We want to take our time to either come up with a better built-in solution or an integration with another tool or something else. This is a
58.
by dhh 15y ago
We're launching with a great set of features we could do in a reasonable amount of time. If we had tried to reimplement every single Basecamp Classic feature in Basecamp Next before we launched, it would have taken a very long time. Basecam
59.
by dhh 15y ago
Which is why in our case we're keeping both the old and the new product around.
60.
by dhh 15y ago
If you rewrite your code base to do the same things as the old code base was doing, yes, you're doing it wrong. If you rewrite your code base to do different things, you might very well be very right. (Depending on whether the market is mor

More ›