nupark2

23 ms·

151.
by nupark2 15y ago
Which circles back around to the point above; until you have a few examples, trying to make something reusable will probably cause you more pain in the long run. That's not justification for bad code, just an argument against premature fact
152.
by nupark2 15y ago
This seems like a risky compliance hack to be relying on. While it might conform to the letter of the law[1], it absolutely does not comply with the spirit of PCI compliance in regards to securing cardholder data. There's literally no secur
153.
by nupark2 15y ago
If you're not going to re-use something, then why are you writing it to be re-usable?
154.
by nupark2 15y ago
I have the same personal rule. Too often junior engineers think that the worst cardinal sin is to have a small amount of duplicated or less abstract than it could be code. This really isn't the case. Until you really understand the commonal
155.
by nupark2 15y ago
> You said that you needed those tools, so I tried to help. But this comment and your other comments make it clear that you don't really need them, you just want to prove a point. No, I do need them, though I looked up the answers whe
156.
by nupark2 15y ago
> Would you prefer to pay for your online content? Yes. A thousand times, yes. As it turns out, we're already inefficiently paying for our online content. Where do you think the dollars for ad budgets come from? I like to think of it
157.
by nupark2 15y ago
All are free. And all are tier 2 solutions. "You can make Visual Studio work with elbow grease" isn't the way to convince anyone to jump on the MS developer bandwagon.
158.
by nupark2 15y ago
> You get Subversion and Git with Xcode and that's it. Exactly 2 choices. Fortunately, those are the only too I need. I agree that Xcode would benefit plugins, but unlike VCE, the Xcode baseline is sufficient for my (and most people's
159.
by nupark2 15y ago
> Why do people need IDE source control integration? ... So that I can hit cmd-option-C (in Xcode), review my diffs and commit, all in less than ~10 seconds. > Explorer integration on windows beats any IDE integration simply beca
160.
by nupark2 15y ago
> Having a good IDE is very nice, but a text editor and a bunch of command-line tools can get the job done. (With that said, I definitely missed VS.) When you're trying to attract developers, "get the job done" doesn't cut it. I'm not
161.
by nupark2 15y ago
> Doesn't that go against your argument? Didn't the iPhone prove that developers were very willing to pay to develops apps? $99. And only after being able to play with the full/complete development tools and simulator for free. If th
162.
by nupark2 15y ago
Xcode provides the functionality you need by default, whereas you need plugins in VS just to get source control. There's also profiling support (not included in VSE), an x86-64 compiler (also not included), etc.
163.
by nupark2 15y ago
1. No alternative copies of Python, Perl, Ruby, zlib, etc... And if I need a newer version of Python, coupled with a dependency tree of third-party modules? I don't see why this matters, other than some pedantic sense of cleanliness ("NO
164.
by nupark2 15y ago
Express is hobbled; no plugins (so you can't use SVN/git plugins), and doesn't ship with things like the 64-bit compiler. It's basically trial-ware. I have no problem with paying for tools, especially for commercial product development. How
165.
by nupark2 15y ago
If library authors release built, static libraries + headers (possibly as a framework), then this approach (UNIX packaging system style) is basically unnecessary. As it is, I rarely have trouble incorporating 3rd party libraries into my pro
166.
by nupark2 15y ago
Everything you just said (packages are files, simple, uses existing tools for self update) applies to MacPorts too. The only real differences seem to be the use of Ruby, and an attempt to avoid replacing OS dependencies -- even if the repla
167.
by nupark2 15y ago
I'm a UNIX and Mac OS X transplant using Windows for embedded hardware development (almost all the tools are Windows-only). I need a terminal from which I can operate on my Windows file system, but running an entire virtual machine is enorm
168.
by nupark2 15y ago
Whether or not you recognize or care about these issues doesn't change the logic behind BSD developer's complaints regarding GPL re-licensing of BSD code, or somehow create a double standard.
169.
by nupark2 15y ago
I'm simply explaining the BSD/proprietary viewpoints. They're obviously contrary to the GPL+FSF viewpoint, but they're not logically inconsistent. In his article, Zed actually said "we're both on the same damn side". However -- barring the
170.
by nupark2 15y ago
There seems to be some implication that because I disagree with the GPL's aims and find them incompatible with my own, I must not understand it. I understand the GPL. However, compared to the alternatives, I don't believe the GPL/FSF are op
171.
by nupark2 15y ago
No, it's not. The core of why we disagree is your bizarre double standard. It's not a double standard. The purpose of the BSD license to encourage widespread adoption which will hopefully lead to widespread contribution, under the assumpt
172.
by nupark2 15y ago
> Claiming unwritten social contracts should guide behavior is asking to be disappointed. Not everyone will have the same view of what those contracts are. I certainly don't share your views on the subject. What, objectively, makes you
173.
by nupark2 15y ago
> There may come a point where the code has changed so substantially that GPL'd and BSD'd portions are inseparable, but at that point, what good is their code to you, anyway? If the code they add is under the GPL, and the aggregate is
174.
by nupark2 15y ago
If they want contributions back, they are welcome to add a clause to the BSD license or use the GPL (or write their own), but they choose the BSD license in its current form and then get upset when someone stays within compliance of the li
175.
by nupark2 15y ago
I think what you're seeing here is endemic of teams of almost entirely junior engineers with insufficient experience (especially in startups), rather than the software engineering space being inordinately large. Regarding GitHub's seeming r
176.
by nupark2 15y ago
This is actually why product managers drive me batty; they're neither a software engineer OR a UX engineer, so they don't actually know how to build the product, nor do they have the design skills to create a great UX. The job you describe
177.
by nupark2 15y ago
> I really don't understand why devs hate on PMs - they exist to let devs focus on code. PMs create customer personas, user stories, UI/UX specs, and business reports, which are all things that the majority of devs don't want to have t
178.
by nupark2 15y ago
> An interesting twist would be a BSD style license that states that if the code is incorporated into a GPL style licensed project, patches to your specific code subset must also be BSD licensed. I've used mixed licenses to achieve th
179.
by nupark2 15y ago
I think this is a fundamental misinterpretation of their position. OpenBSD can both complain about lack of contributions AND still believe that the BSD license is most amenable to their goals. If I put a bowl of candy out at my restaurant
180.
by nupark2 15y ago
Proprietary forks are always able to submit pieces of their code back to the originating BSD project. That's fine -- proprietary developers never claimed to be anything other than what they are, and if they eventually submit something bac

More ›