His main concern is that you lose static checks by the compiler, you lose clarity in the code, you lose dynamic configuration of objects AND you have to use yet another DLL (and a horrible one at that: XML).
>At least you can fork it internally though and support it if need be.
That's almost as realistic as "the community could do a clean-house implementation of XNA" for large projects.
That you wanted to use an project in your work, doesn't mean you could also maintain it when it's abandoned. You might not have the: interest, motivation, time, skills.
>Tell me more about how you read the GoF book, and applied the patterns in a language that does not even have interfaces or type-hinting. What a joke.
I don't see any joke. Jokes are of the type "Knock knock, who's there", etc. Using GoF patterns in a language without interfaces or type hinting? Not so much.
Most of the design patterns can be applied in any language, some languages even have inherent support for some of them. Not much to do with types or interfaces (besides them offering extra checks).
Facade, Decorator, Flyweight, Iterator, Proxy, etc... Equally at home in Java, C++, Smalltalk, Python or Ruby...
>On a recent article, another "Ruby expert" (who writes and sells programming books) was shocked by the fact that you can reuse code with inheritance. You should read it.
>So I still have to wake, look at the clock, make a decision about whether it's time to get up, then take action based on that.
Yes, no magic unicorns and fairies spreading pixie dust to wake you up at just the right moment, I'm afraid.
The indecipherable to you message of the story is: don't go back to sleep if you happen to wake up shortly before the alarm clock. Just wake up.
Now, if you woke yourself up at 3:00, as you ask in your previous comment, that doesn't fall on the "shortly" period before a 6:30 way, so by all means go back to sleep. I mean, Oh, those hard decisions...
>But it's not just this one thing. I see so many people intent on sharing their personal revelations that it's now impossible to find genuine insights that are more widely applicable than that one person's experience. This is the age of crowd-sourced "wisdom", where everyone thinks their own discoveries will apply universally. Anecdote over data, experience over research.
I think that what you write above ONLY APPLIES TO YOU. Perhaps you should do some more research into the matter, instead of shoving your personal anecdotes on to us.
>Wouldn't it be more important to have people to come up with brilliant solutions on problems they are working on, rather than hard problems in general that have already been solved?
Most of the times the guys that can come with "brilliant solutions" on new problems are those that know the solved problems inside and out.
The other guys just keep reinventing the wheel (only worse).
Road rage? People going on rampage with guns and killing tens of innocents? Fatso kids screaming in restaurants and behaving badly in public? The most BS self-entitled complaints in restaurant/hotel/etc reviews always written by Americans? People posting pictures of their cats? Do any of these things ring a bell?
>Building responsively is an investment for the future. You can bet good money that there will be more and more diversity of screen sizes as we keep going.
I find responsive design a cheap copout, jack of all screen resolutions, master of none.
Just create a good desktop design, and make sure it plays on a modern smartphone with tap-to-zoom. Tablets will work automatically.
I dont'see "more diversity of screen sizes" coming affecting this at all. New screen sizes will just be bigger than an 2010 iPhone/Android phone. Those can play well with desktop-sized designs anyway.
And even if you have a 30" monitor you still don't need more than 1000-1200 pixels of webpage estate anyway. For one, people can't read or follow freakishly long lines of text easily.
>When you use this manipulation to get your way to your kids, the kid watches you, and you find yourself the lab rat of a psychological manipulator far more capable then yourself. And the kid uses tricks you never heard of to shape your behaviour. Which causes a feedback loop of who can trick the other into doing what they want better.
It's not a manipulation or a trick.
It's a "reward system". You get X only if you do Y. Period.
It has worked wonders for ages. Still does in most parts of the world. The US has a messed up system that ends with annoying, over-self-indulged, entitled children and adults.
Which is not the same at all with having thousands of proprietary third-party apps to distribute in closed source form (as opposed to having control of some open source repo with redistribution and re-compile/modify etc) right.
So your point is even more irrelevant to the original discussion.