How performant is this or other similar projects (pfff, PHP-Parser)? Are any of them a viable option to use for a base of a improved support for PHP in text editors (say vim, st, atom)?
> We’ve tried to make it as easy and simple as possible to use. Here’s how it works. First, you create a Vesper Sync account using an email address and a password. Then, your Vesper data — the text of your notes, your image attachments, your tags, everything — syncs to our cloud service. Sign in using the same account on another device, and your Vesper data will appear on that device.
> That’s it.
I don't get why it's mentioned as something special - isn't it how it usually works? Dropbox, OneNote, OneDrive, Google Drive, anything? You create account, sign in, bam you have your data synced.
> If I'm creating an HTTP API and someone else is writing the front-end, I'll create unit tests that spin up my API and make requests to it to ensure I get the correct responses.
That's not unit test though, rather integration or system test.
This is great and exactly what I need in my PHP. Glad to see types making sort of a come back (see also: TypeScript) as I think they're, in one way or another, necessity in a large scale applications.
One note though - the success of this depends on the success of HHVM. Hopefully FB guys understand that and will push even more to make HHVM the best platform to have for running PHP on.
I like FF dev tools a lot, yet there is some stuff there that could be better:
- no call stack(?)
- breakpoints are a bit of a hit or miss, especially when callbacks are involved.
- http request monitoring is a bit messy - you see the request in the console, you can click on them, but the resulting dialog box only offers basic info, without even an option to go to the clicked url directly. In network panel the functionality is completely different for some reason. Fortunately mostly fine, but one irritating thing is that response view is so little and you cannot make it much wider.
But anyway, they're improving greatly, only a couple of months back you couldn't even think about not using Firebug in FF. So kudos to them for all the hard work.
I tried WebStorm and found their support for TS severly lacking, IIRC it was limited to automatic compilation and basic syntax detecting. Code understanding/static type analysis was basically non-existent, e.g. it wasn't checking if argument conforms the interface described in the method's definition - you had to compile the script to find that out.
My only gripe - VS is way too expensive, for my pocket at least. And you need VS to program in TS, Intellisense is that good. Sure, you can go with Express edition but then you don't have node.js extension - which kinda make the whole endeavour bit pointless (again, for me at least).
Wish they would bring prices to the level of, for example, those of Jetbrains, or made node.js extension working with Express.
It's basically a common pattern when it comes to UI for the lists, I remember MFC had it like a hundred years ago and I bet they weren't the 1st to do it this way.
Thanks for mentioning RainLoop,I was looking at various open source webmails and wasn't happy with them (Mailpile looks promising though), but never before run into RainLoop, looks like a winner.
Well, you could do a better job at criticizing richly-sourced article than just write opinions in a matter-o-factly way.
First of all, the article doesn't say much (anything?) about MVC frameworks.
Then, mediator and observer are very similar patterns and you can easily implement the former with the latter.
Modules described in the article are working very much the same as the ones that come with ECMAScript6. Check how TypeScript - which follows the ES6 way - implements those. Not much rewriting to be done there.
Further more, all of the stuff described in the article is not particularly new - those are patterns well known for a while, field-tested in the huge, existing projects.