I managed to get to about 30 seconds with 65,000 files on a local ext3 file system. The file names where all of the same length and with a ~100 character long identical prefix. I re-mounted the file system before the ls to eliminate caching.
There is a huge difference. I'm not bothered one little bit about logged-in / opt-in users or those who chose to install a plug in. My concern is specifically with a visitor who did not register and have no clue of what's going on.
I noticed that they are using CDN from day one. What's the rational behind it? How much complexity the CDN integration adds to the code and procedures? Is the number of images they load an important factor here? I think they are loading only few images of their own. (I'm not criticizing, just asking).
Isn't that borderline phishing, Seriously? I'm thinking about a naive visitor, who doesn't have an account with Plurchase. If s/he now tries to login to Zappos, Plurchase sees and handles her/his username & password. This is a simple man-in-the-middle attack.
The lazy function technique can easily become an example of bad coding practice. Code needs to be easy to read, understand, and maintain. In most cases solution 2 is good enough, in all cases it's much simpler.
Advanced techniques should only be used when there is a clear justification to sacrifice simplicity. It is disastrous when developers use so-called "advanced" technique only to entertain themselves and show-off.
You are judged not by the niftyness of your code, but by the availability, maintainability, stability and functionality of your system as a whole.
Coming up with the right name for a variable or a function can easily become the most difficult part of my day. I always wanted to open variable and function names consultancy.
When you find a bug, by all means, go ahead and fix it. (Well, not always. You need to make sure your fix is not likely to introduce a more severe bug. Not all bugs made equal and some guts-feeling required).
If your goal is to make your system as robust as engineerically possible, you should most likely pay more attention in some directions and less in other. It's not only about quantity - you better have no critical bugs then have only-a-very-few critical ones.
I wonder how many files with a name containing \n are in the wild. And if you encounter such a file, does it really matter if you accidentally delete it?
Waisting brain cycles to save CPU cycles (in the wrong places) is shameful, insulting and boring.
It would be amazing if there weren't tons of other, much more significant, things that deserved attention in the relevant script, system, or the developer's life. (sign)
> It’s a mystery to me why more organizations don’t hide what their people are doing online (ask any 12 year old computer enthusiast how this is done if you don’t know), but for whatever reason, many of them don’t.
He is talking about a site that it took one person one day to rewrite. Then he writes:
'''Ruby’s inheritance, metaprogramming, flexible mixins, and testing culture support a fantastically granular ecosystem of encapsulatable, interchangeable, combinable tools.'''
AFAIK, one of the browsers (probably IE), ignores query parameters on css and js files and will not refresh foo.css?v=2 if it has foo.css?v=1 in its cache.
The URL system is a dead end. There are just not enough good, or just reasonable, domain names out there. A drill-down method, for example, a simple search and a selection among a few alternative, looks like a potential alternative. I never used AOL keywords but this does look like a smart way to find a website.