These stories are popular. What is not is the grind. There are few poster children for Android, lots for iOS. The truth is some Android software does fine, and so does some iOS software. Once 100x more Androids are going to be sold, all of a sudden "developers dumping Apple due to lengthy approval process". It's just press at times.
> the renderer hierarchy he created is yet another good example
> of why I believe coffeescript needs interfaces...
What exactly are you thinking of here? Because JS is as flexible as you can be in terms of duck-typing and calling any function with any number of arguments -- I don't see what having an explicit "interface" construct would gain you.
Compiler safety for the design. Implement a base class, and force implementation for sub classes. I know that CS philosophically is about keeping JS's openness, but I feel it would be a time saving convenience if the compiler told me I was missing a method.
If you want a language that compiles to JS and has more compile-time checking, I'd encourage you to check out Dart. It's not everyone's cup of tea, but if you don't mind semicolons and curly braces, it gives you a pretty decent amount of compile time checking while still generating nice JS.
Ah yes -- this would be very against the open/dynamic spirit of CS and JS -- and for that reason, we'd never add it. Many valid uses of subtypes don't need to implement every method defined by a parent type (or interface) in order to be used correctly.
For example, a rich "collection" interface that has some helper functions for key:value hash-like collections, but that a more array- or set-like subtype doesn't have to implement.
If you forget to implement a method that you later try to use, you'll find out when you try to use it. Such is the nature of the beast.
Crunchpad anyone? I found him too infrequent to be a major reason to visit the site. I suspect that most of the traffic hit techcrunch thanks to the endless link baiting of MG or popularity contest blather like their Twitter "coverage". Twitter used to be every other feature.
Other big winners were Sarah Lacy saying that old media is dead and no one wants to be a journalist at WSJ (how did that turn out btw) or other random bouts of idiocy (RSS is dead!)
Frankly, Techcrunch has long been a source of tech trolling. For trolls, by trolls. Its no wonder it went under - the sugar high simply ran out.
After everyone saw how it easy it was to write your own blog in Rails, everyone ... used Wordpress anyway.
The Rails use case was always truly limited. I still don't know any application that achieved maturity and stayed coded in Rails. For a while that was Twitter, but then they started moving stuff over the jvm.
Node will probably end up in a similar way, because at the end of the day no one wants to manage thousands of lines of Javascript (or any other language that doesn't enjoy the benefits of a statically typed ide).
1) Meh on node. I don't really see the advantage of using node aside from specific and well defined performance requirements. It's ironic to be saying this coming from Rails, but it seems like Node's toolset is somewhat immature. Is there a good way to use plugins in Node? There must be. Anyhow, server side? Meh.
2) That said, Javascript isn't going away. We will all be managing thousands of lines of Javascript because… that's where applications are going - client side. Good luck convincing all the browser vendors to swap.
Anyhow, I know you're just trolling but you have to up your troll game - 98% of apps fall in between "toy demo" and "twitter".
In my experience with Ruby development (2 years), I have never, ever experienced a single issue caused by duck typing. Static typing is great for performance, but it has nothing to do with being able to maintain a project.
Have you worked with more than 5 developers on a rails project? I ask because all the problems I've had with dick typing appear around interfaces between code from 2 programmers, and 5 seems to be the threshold where communication starts to break down.
The "Blog in 5 Minutes" demo was just that, a demo. It was a showcase of how easy it is to create simple CRUD apps in Rails as compared to competing frameworks (or DIY stuff) of that era. Even today, it remains a decent beginner's example that touches on many aspects of MVC.
I don't think you really believe a web development framework and a feature rich blogging product were actual competitors but are simply creating strawmen to support your view. Drop the crap.
