jerluc

10 ms·

61.
by jerluc 12y ago
Couldn't agree more with this. IMO Dropwizard (with help from JAX-RS) has greatly simplified the process of spinning up a basic REST web service: embedded Jetty by default, Jersey support, Logback (talk about simplifying the world of m
62.
by jerluc 12y ago
I'd agree with some of the other commentors' sentiments voicing that you should start out with Objective-C, but less so because of immature tooling. For me personally, I'd be more concerned about someone in your position tryi
63.
by jerluc 12y ago
I entirely disagree. As most all open source projects, Ruby has a set of core contributors, but is clearly open to community contribution, as can be seen from their Git repo's history ( https://github.com/ruby/ruby&
64.
by jerluc 12y ago
I could be wrong, but I believe the parent is referring to the inability for a "vibrant community" to maintain Swift as a language implementation (instead of Apple), which is very different than Ruby. There's no doubt in my m
65.
by jerluc 12y ago
@CmonDev We [URX] definitely have looked into support for Windows Phone deeplinking, but found it difficult to find any examples of websites using Windows Store meta markup properly, which would be a prerequisite for us to support such apps
66.
by jerluc 12y ago
@rahimnathwani, just to clarify one point: There are absolutely no "designed-for-URX tags" that we have documented. All of the meta/link tags that are documented are usable by Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc. It might not be e
67.
by jerluc 12y ago
@mikejarema, this is basically what we are doing; if a user doesn't like an app, then they won't have it installed, and it will simply fallback to the website URL in the browser. [full disclosure, I'm an engineer at URX]
68.
by jerluc 12y ago
@smrtinsert, just a couple of things to clarify: 1. There is no third-party service that needs to be intergrated into the mobile application for omnilinks; you can simply prepend " http://urx.io/" in front of your
69.
by jerluc 13y ago
I was quite intrigued at first by this concept, but was a little turned off by the fact that the Sandstorm crew offers to "Use Our Servers..." to run Sandstorm itself. IMHO, this offering basically reverses any of the real benefit
70.
by jerluc 13y ago
Though I'd generally agree with your last statement (and relish in the amazement on one's face when I show them disassembled JVM bytecode for the first time), I'd have to say that this is still quite a "special" fea
71.
by jerluc 13y ago
Although I tend to agree with the author's sentiments here, there is one important distinction that ought to be made here: more features/capabilities != more code != more complexity. In my experience developing both in net-new cod
72.
by jerluc 13y ago
Yeah...I unfortunately ended up with the same general shape: https://identicons.github.com/jerluc.png
73.
by jerluc 13y ago
I completely agree with this. Perhaps expanding the idea further however, it makes sense IMHO to see a multi-staff score (this could mean either a score written for multiple parts, or as something like piano scores which typically have a st
74.
by jerluc 13y ago
I'm assuming you never got to the "Afterword" (perhaps due to anger or frustration?), as it is at that point that the author reveals that the entire article up to that point is the exact opposite of what he supports. This does of course mak
75.
by jerluc 14y ago
Sounds like a good idea, especially the fact that it greatly minimizes the feedback time of communicating with each other (unlike email, Linkedin, etc).