181–190 of 230 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This one single feature could potentially have the largest impact on my workflow in 2018. As much as I love async task management. Real-time collaboration with remote team members should be fascinating ;)
I guess the next step would be something along the lines of Google Wave where you could playback the "conversations" and see the learning process develop.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, appears to be dumb luck. You don't put together branding and a demo of real-time collaborative editing in a day.
I prefer to imagine that great minds think alike! :) Or more scientifically speaking, the theory of multiple discovery [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_discovery
Not sure this is wise, but I started a test portal 252510f8-e474-45e0-bec1-5714435fa305 if you want to give it a whirl. Edit: it's still working great even with 15+ people - very slick! Also, here's the madness in repo form - https://github.com/mrspeaker/teletest
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I prefer to imagine that great minds think alike! :) Or more scientifically speaking, the theory of multiple discovery [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_discovery
The amount of [citation needed]s in that article is too high.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I doubt any Electron-based editor is going to feel as snappy and light as Vi. Have you been noticing performance decreases? I haven't noticed any.
> feel as snappy and light as Vi. this is only true if we're strictly talking editing text wihtout any plugin functionality. As soon as you add code completion features vim shows its age, the Ale extension for async linting for example feels very sluggish on a few only slightly dated laptops I tried out and frequently grills the cpu.
However Neovim’s plug-in architecture is a big improvement. I’m running Deoplete (which provides intellisense like functionality) on the same machine, and it is basically instant. There are GIFs at the bottom of the repo:
The only pro for this is there are no conflicts, so merging is easier. However, live conflicts are still bound to happen if 2 people want to work on the same section of the code, right?
And the cost of this is the total unability to debug...
I don't get it...
Am I really the only one on this forum to think that live shared coding is a terrible idea? The only pro for this is there are no conflicts, so merging is easier. However, live conflicts are still bound to happen if 2 people want to work on the same section of the code, right? And the cost of this is the total unability to debug... I don't get it...
I don't like it. I think small services, incremental changes, strong tests and solid code reviews all work much better. Especially the tests and code reviews. At my last shop the company had an internal Gitlab and we used the Gitlab CI. Reviews + CI really helped keep the coding standards pretty high and helped younger devs not make beginner Scala mistakes coming from a Java background.