xaduha

62 ms·

661.
by xaduha 11y ago
Those are for "home use", for other stuff you use DNS. DNS is what they call "internet scale".
662.
by xaduha 11y ago
Hear, hear. The fact that IPv6 addresses are so unruly is a blessing in disguise. Use DNS, /etc/hosts, bonjour, .ssh/config, whatever. Use names, stop using addresses directly, even with IPv4.
663.
by xaduha 11y ago
So that's one model out of many. With a specific version of the software. What about other smartphones? There's no guarantee it still going to be secure in the future and there's no guarantee that it was secure in the past.
664.
by xaduha 11y ago
Nope. And in any case that's one area in which "security through obscurity" can be useful. Presumably you have your phone on your person, but the fact that you have a server somewhere has to be determined. And if we are being
665.
by xaduha 11y ago
We are talking about relative security here. Do you really think that keeping stuff on your phone is more secure than keeping it elsewhere? Let me remind you, than if I'm not mistaken in US law enforcement can search your phone without
666.
by xaduha 11y ago
Who said anything about "the cloud"? I've edited previous comment.
667.
by xaduha 11y ago
> You don't see them going after servers, because the servers are far more vulnerable. Really? Every kind of server? I'm sorry, but that's some ridiculous statement. A device running proprietary software that governments h
668.
by xaduha 11y ago
Don't keep stuff on your smartphone, that's my solution. At most it should be a thin client.
669.
by xaduha 11y ago
There are other APIs and/or data models other than DOM, you know. Tree is the data structure there and it's not synonymous with DOM. But what always sucked is trying to work with trees using a procedural/imperative/OO la
670.
by xaduha 11y ago
Yes, one is an example of a very advanced technology and the other is NodeJS.
671.
by xaduha 11y ago
Blog post about it. http://dev.saxonica.com/blog/mike/2016/02/introducing-saxon-...
672.
by xaduha 11y ago
> I don't see big advantages over one of the Jax-RS libraries, though. I do, at least potentially. JAX-RS frameworks that are currently on the market add too much overhead. https://www.techempower.com/benchmarks&#x2F
673.
by xaduha 11y ago
I can only speak for myself, but for me it does, by forcing you to do stuff differently. Eventually you realise that Dockerfiles are fine and dandy, but this mechanism isn't really needed and it can be an obstacle. You realise that a g
674.
by xaduha 11y ago
There's also http://www.28.io (totally ungooglable name, btw. Also know as "28msec"). http://www.28.io/documentation/latest/data-sources/ Not really comparable to Parse, even though
675.
Red/System Language Specification(static.red-lang.org)
4 points by xaduha 11y ago|0 comments
676.
by xaduha 11y ago
RiotJS couldn't keep it to the original size of about 3 KB, it's about 9 KB now. They market it as a "React-like", but it appears that this one is way more "React-like" than RiotJS ever was.
677.
by xaduha 11y ago
Yep. It always helps to take a step back and ask yourself what you're trying to achieve here.
678.
by xaduha 11y ago
> It's crazy that in 2016, people are still seeking the holy grail of statically typed, memory safe, no VM programming languages that retains most of the advantages of dynamically typed languages. I have my eye on Red and its system
679.
by xaduha 11y ago
jQuery is not cool. It's been there, done that for most, we all know where that road leads.
680.
by xaduha 11y ago
This article is pretty close to what I think on the matter. W3C isn't a monolithic organisation, there are many working groups that aren't really connected with each other. And some of those groups had a declarative vision for the
681.
by xaduha 11y ago
It doesn't? It's closer to Coffescript I think. ur/web might be hard to get into for someone who doesn't have ML or Haskell experience.
682.
by xaduha 11y ago
It didn't really took 16 years to implement. It was announced 16 years ago. In any case, the fact that the project wasn't abandoned after all that speaks for itself. It's here and the future was never brigher for it than it i
683.
by xaduha 11y ago
There was nothing wrong with XHTML 2.0 apart from 0 support from the vendors. So I guess it's better, right? (but let's not discuss XHTML 2.0 now)
684.
by xaduha 11y ago
IPv6 will get there eventually, there's no immediate need for it to happen overnight, obviously.
685.
by xaduha 11y ago
Bottomline is that you're not free to use what you want in the browser, that's what drove the popularity of JS (and JSON). If you think that XML was a popular choice, but then lost its popularity due to JSON having better syntax -
686.
by xaduha 11y ago
What's important about XML isn't XML itself. It's specifications, standards, toolset. Just because it can be replicated doesn't it will be. That's probably man-centuries of work.
687.
by xaduha 11y ago
With JSON you're not working with it as a tree, you're working with it as a set of objects. But what do you use to work with XML(or HTML) as a tree? You use DOM, OO API. And DOM sucks. There are wrappers around DOM, like jQuery, b
688.
by xaduha 11y ago
Are you even serious? Of course there would be different formats for every goddamn thing under the Sun. What really happens there is called Impedance Mismatch Similar to this, but with XML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
689.
by xaduha 11y ago
It was practical, easy enough to do and didn't break any existing stuff. It's still XML, right? So why not? Nothing to do with obnoxiousness.
690.
by xaduha 11y ago
It's easy enough to create an alternative syntax for it, one-to-one translation. For HTML (XHTML?) there are plenty examples already like Jade. http://jade-lang.com/ But people who are serious about XML-related technol

More ›