The problem on Android is that a lot of countries still don't support payments for apps. In other words, on android you still can't use paid apps. You're limited to the free apps. That's one point where Apple really shines thanks to their already existing infrastructure for iTunes. I also think that's one of the reasons why devs flocked to iOS development in the first place. Millions of active accounts with valid creditcards attached to it is a tempting thing :p
Watch a youtube review or read a review on it. If possible, test it out on a friends phone?
In a perfect world Apple would allow a trial mode for apps which would enable all features for X hours or X uses. But that's just Apple. It'll never happen. I heard though that MS does something like this for its apps? Or is it only for games?
This is definitely a good thing. Support the developers. It takes a lot of time and effort to build an app. Surely a single dollar (usually) is not too much to pay. Im' still surprised how cheap most apps are for my phone ;o
I think he's saying Java is recreating what C made.I don't agree since Java allows writing of code at a higher level. (with a garbage collector etc)
Every programming language sort of recreates the basics. They are the basics after all. The neat programming languages/frameworks are the ones that 'reinvent' something. Do something in a completely new way. On a programminglanguage-level it's difficult. A lot of the practices were already invented in early languages like lisp, eifel & smalltalk.
I like Ruby because it's not ashamed of taking the great parts from other programming languages and putting it together in an easily understandable language.
Yes. Except for okcupid. They pleaded with me via an ad of theirs (which was locally so it wasn't flagged by adblock) telling me that they rely on ads for income. They also said that I coud just pay 5 or 10$ and pay for my use for life. Which was a pretty cool thing to do :)
Ads should be quality checked by the site's owners. A crappy ad can turn away a visitor. At least I don't run the risk of that.
Redefining a class isn't dependency injection it's a hack to get the compiler to stop complaining. It works but it's very unclear to the person reading the program that a class your code depends on was actually redefined somewhere else.
For testing purposes placing this mock class somewhere at the start of your code is clear but only ever practical in that scenario.
I can also imagine that some programmers might not even think of the possibility that some code they depend on was overridden somewhere else.
In real maintainable code where you want to swap out behaviours it's nice if there was a special way of defining your dependencies. This is the same for all languages.
Deject offers a way so you don't have to fiddle with constructors but instead you have handles in your classes that you can override with different behavior if needed.
TL;DR: Yes, Ruby is powerful and you technically don't need IoC containers. But to make it maintainable for everyone it's a good idea to do so anyway.
Check out http://theat.me/. Something very similar and 'designy'. And they also index movies on crackle etc. A lot of free to watch sources. (usually only if you are in the US though ...)
A lot would argue that it's a horribly cluttered and slow IDE. People who love VIM will definitely not like Visual Studio.
That said, since the last few years Microsoft has really been on top of their game. Their latest frameworks are easy to grasp and perform very well. C# is also not too verbose and on top of that they are starting to push open-source with initiatives like codeplex and NuGet. In their MVC Framework they even push jQuery and they are core contributors to it. They recently released their WebAPI wich is a pretty smooth way to create a REST-ful JSON/XML API.
It's definitely not a bad choice. Especially if your developers have already mastered it.
It might not be hip (yet) but it's definitely solid. Although still lagging behind after the trendsetters (Ruby community imo).
Use a higher level programming language and use a standard interface to communicate with the frontend. If you build a REST API for the backend it doesn't even matter what language it is written in. You can always swap parts out for faster performing versions later on. You can even split up parts in different programming languages.
If you want to decrease development cost go with an ecosystem that most of your developers have mastered. Python, PHP, Ruby, Java, .NET, whatever. Pretty much all these languages have great frameworks these days to allow for faster development.
I personally go with Ruby because they were pretty much first on the scene with their gem ecosystem (which is massive), they have a lot of cool and smart developers in the community and it's overal a great experience. Easy to pick up too with all the resources that are out there.
But whatever you do don't force a language along with it's ecosystem that your developers don't like. Listen to the dev team and know that every language has great potential. I'd come back and ask what frameworks should I use to build a high performance site as quickly & efficiently as possible given I work with language X. Maybe the dev team is unaware of recent awesome frameworks in the language they know & love.
Just buy a decent laptop with great battery life & mobility properties and a PS3/4 or a cheap gaming PC for gaming.