291–300 of 324 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, you were assuming that they weren't making a profit based on some sort of gut feeling that they were "still in start-up mode", but you used quite absolute language suggesting personal knowledge of the state of their books.
Why the heck would GitHub take $100 million in investment and still push for earning a profit every quarter? Does it make any sense to you? Now you can see why I'm confused.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
JSON is basically XML with 50% less bullshit. I don't get this. XML has the capacity of being as simple as you want it to be. You don't need schemas, namespaces, xpath, and so on, and can make your XML life every bit as easy as JSON. In many ways easier given that JSON doesn't even have a bloody date or time type. But if you do want strong-type validation, schemas and namespaces are there for you. If you want an easy…
I don't understand the complant that JSON doesn't support a date/time format. It supports numbers and strings. You can use unix timestamps, you can use ISO 8601, you can use any format that makes sense for your application. JSON doesn't support a Date/Time object because it's a data format. XML doesn't support a Date/Time object either. Now if you want to complain that the JSON parsers don't automatically convert ISO…
XML doesn't support objects, but there was enough thought put into the implementation that it has an easy way to document and define the types, with validated ways of representation. ISO 8601 for the xsd:dateTime, for instance. There is no ambiguity or uncertainty, no hand-rolled varieties of crazy, quite unlike JSON world where there are a hundred ways to represent a date or date/time, all of them broken in some way or other.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We got NoSQL (esp. JSON based ones) instead of XML. Close enough though. JSON is basically XML with 50% less bullshit. It does less but it does it so much more elegantly than XML - and has the further benefit of a syntax similar to that of structured data in such languages as Javascript (duh), Python and Ruby - that it was a shoo-in to squeeze XML out of most non-enterprise uses, at least on the data transfer forma…
JSON is basically XML with 50% less bullshit. I don't get this. XML has the capacity of being as simple as you want it to be. You don't need schemas, namespaces, xpath, and so on, and can make your XML life every bit as easy as JSON. In many ways easier given that JSON doesn't even have a bloody date or time type. But if you do want strong-type validation, schemas and namespaces are there for you. If you want an easy…
XLST is a friggin nightmare to code and I can't think of any reason why one would want to use it. It's much better to first parse the XML and then reshape to your needs rather than trying to do both at the same which XSLT does. In short, XSLT violates separation of conerns. Furthermore, if you think XML is hard to read, just try reading someone else's XL
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The idea that taking investment automatically means you would actively forgo earning a profit is kinda odd. You take investment to grow, not because you have an allergy to profits.
Not really. Say you take $100 million in finance, so you are now $100 million in debt and you are probably not going to put the money in the bank, but spend it. When you spend (invest) the money, that is taken away from earnings and you can spend more than you earn thanks to the financing. Even if the company's valuation goes up because of these investments, they are still taking a loss now. You have to take a hit no…
Venture capital is not a loan; it's a purchase of equity. You are not in debt after taking money.
1. XML databases will surpass relational databases in popularity by 2011. We got NoSQL (esp. JSON based ones) instead of XML. Close enough though. 2. Someone will make a lot of money by hosting open-source web applications. Github is cool but with all the cheapskate web devs (no offense, I am one of them) I don't think it is _that_ profitable. 3. Multi-threaded programming will fall out of favor by 2012. Not really.…
Github is cool but with all the cheapskate web devs (no offense, I am one of them) I don't think it is _that_ profitable. It must be. Github raised 100m from investors led by Andreesen Horowitz in 2012. You don't get that kind of funding from that level of quality investors without a seriously good financial trajectory.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We got NoSQL (esp. JSON based ones) instead of XML. Close enough though. JSON is basically XML with 50% less bullshit. It does less but it does it so much more elegantly than XML - and has the further benefit of a syntax similar to that of structured data in such languages as Javascript (duh), Python and Ruby - that it was a shoo-in to squeeze XML out of most non-enterprise uses, at least on the data transfer forma…
JSON is basically XML with 50% less bullshit. I don't get this. XML has the capacity of being as simple as you want it to be. You don't need schemas, namespaces, xpath, and so on, and can make your XML life every bit as easy as JSON. In many ways easier given that JSON doesn't even have a bloody date or time type. But if you do want strong-type validation, schemas and namespaces are there for you. If you want an easy…
XML data model (trees with attributed nodes and special kinds of leaves) is not native to any language: XPath/XQuery and XSLT exist to bridge the alien world of XML to regular programming languages. Taking them out doesn't make XML simpler.
JSON doesn't have them because it can be represented with maps and lists, object types fundamental to many programming languages (it practically maps almost exactly to every scripting language created in the last 20 years). That's why it doesn't have, and doesn't need, XPath or XSLT equivalents. And that's also why it feels more natural to most programmers (ie. 50% less bullshit).
You could build a stronger case for the need of schemas and namespaces but IMHO that's actually bullshit, even in XML. But you can ignore them in XML too, as you noted, so it doesn't really matter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1. What's a good tutorial to learn JAXB and JAX-RS? 2. Maven is a nightmare too. Every time I've used it (usually because I'm compiling someone else's code and they wrote the build in maven), it downloads hundreds of megabytes of who-knows-what from random Internet sites. I want to pin versions of dependencies (and dependencies-of-dependencies) so my builds are repeatable, and I want to be sure everyone who's forked…
> I want to pin versions of dependencies (and dependencies-of-dependencies) so my builds are repeatable That's by default in maven - you have to do something really stupid to get non-repeatable builds (usually involves specifying open version ranges or some weird plugin magic) >everyone who's forked my git repo can still build the code if the Maven URL's for the deps have gone out of business One of the main advantag…
I think they changed it now but for years the default behaviour was to get the latest versions of every plugin, making builds non-repeatable by default.
1. XML databases will surpass relational databases in popularity by 2011. We got NoSQL (esp. JSON based ones) instead of XML. Close enough though. 2. Someone will make a lot of money by hosting open-source web applications. Github is cool but with all the cheapskate web devs (no offense, I am one of them) I don't think it is _that_ profitable. 3. Multi-threaded programming will fall out of favor by 2012. Not really.…
Err, that prediction talks about something like Amazon AWS and Heroku, which very much happened. Not about hosting open source CODE.
>3. Multi-threaded programming will fall out of favor by 2012. Not really. We are already in the multicore age, and it will only get moreticore.
Nope. Multi-threaded programming he talks about has long fallen out of favor. Multicore programming in 2013 is all about message passing, STM et al --where threads are hidden from the programmer.
>5. Lisp will be in the top 10 most popular programming languages by 2010. This failed hard.
If you count Clojure, it didn't fail that bad. But the general trend towards functional programming and its concepts means that the prediction sort of have been proven true, despite Lisp not being the language that brought it.
>6. A new internet community-hangout will appear. One that you and I will frequent. This is such a vague prediction does not even worth mentioning.
Are you kidding me? This is all about Facebook, before there was facebook.
>7. The mobile/wireless/handheld market is still at least 5 years out. Happened sooner.
Well, the iPhone appeared on 2007, so not that much sooner. And he is correct that the whole market exploded a little afterwards (the first iPhone wasn't even 3G, remember?).
>9. Apple's laptop sales will exceed those of HP/Compaq, IBM, Dell and Gateway combined by 2010. No way, thanks God.
Actually not that off. Especially if you include the iPad: http://photos.appleinsider.com/deutsche-120206.jpg
And even without it, Apple has 1) that exact share of profits (of all those others combined), 2) that share of the high-end (> $1000) market.
>10. In five years' time, most programmers will still be average. This makes no sense
Makes no sense? If anything it's an absolutely true tautological statement, mathematically speaking.
