Plain JS is better suited for developers who are writing large apps. jQuery is a nightmare to maintain in large applications and popular SPA apps have foregone jQuery (except Backbone.js). jQuery has its place in small websites that don't do much but when you need to code logic into things, jQuery is just not suitable.
The problem with the DOM is the DOM itself and how it is written. React decided to abstract it completely, AngularJS decided to bundle its own version of jQuery with it and try to restrict DOM manipulations within directives. But both still do DOM manipulation under the hood, whether it is with jQuery or framework X it doesn't matter, provided the DOM abstraction works on a wide range of browsers and is extensively tested.
But what is wrong is saying jQuery isn't plain JS or "Vanilla JS". Which is stupid since jQuery IS a DOM abstraction and any javascript library written in javascript is plain or vanilla js. It can only mean that the person who says that doesn't know the difference between the DOM and Javascript.
I think we're all aware jQuery is written plain JS and it's not an own language ... it's an abstraction layer. The question is: Is it still necessary - or is it becoming obsolete, because nativly in browsers implemented DOM has evolved to the point where an abstraction layer isn't making things easier any more.
So, why use an abstraction layer if the base layer itself offers quite the same comfort?
Been suffering with depression for most of my life. Exercise does help (for me, it's walking or hiking). I took medication for a year and I hated it. I meditate a lot (I'm a Christian) and I spend a lot of time introspecting my issues. Much of my depression comes from having a crappy childhood so I often have to address them in creative ways.
There have been times work has made me depressed so I take some time off. I also have done a good job of not associating things with my identity, so work is work and if I lose my job, then it's my job I lost. I tend to segment things in my mind so that when I underperform at work, I feel bad but not to the point that I want to kill myself over it. Learning to value yourself can be difficult but it's not impossible.
Ballmer was good at sales but horrible at running a company. He was perfect before the internet came to be and before the rise of mobile devices. Ballmer, is in fact, what sunk Microsoft for a better part of a decade or more.
Nadella is doing MS good. For one, he understands market dynamics better than Ballmer did and is willing to gamble. As a C# developer of 10 years, this is the first time Microsoft actually "spiced up" their product line. Offering up robust tooling like Visual Studio Community (which is just a free version of Professional) shows me Microsoft is committed to the platform. Now, with Visual Studio Code, it will make my work better since I'm 99% on a Mac these days. The next few months will be interesting. :)
> Open source is not available to commercial companies. The way the license is written, if you use any open-source software, you have to make the rest of your software open source. If the government wants to put something in the public domain, it should. Linux is not in the public domain. Linux is a cancer that attaches itself in an intellectual property sense to everything it touches. That's the way that the license works.
Is he wrong about the GPL? It actually does what he is talking about by design. Every company which uses GPL code is very careful about how they do so. A lot won't touch GPLv3 because of the newer restrictions. AGPL as well.
Yes, even if he was talking about the GPL when he said "open source software", he would be wrong. (And if he meant the GPL, he would be wrong in using the general term "open source software" in referring to it, even if his statements were accurate for the GPL.)
> It actually does what he is talking about by design.
No it doesn't. He says "if you use any open-source software, you have to make the rest of your software open source." You can use GPL software without making your other software GPL. You can distribute GPL software without making your other software GPL. You can distribute GPL software without making other software you distribute together with the GPL software GPL, too, in some cases.
> Every company which uses GPL code is very careful about how they do so.
Many of them also produce a lot of non-GPL software. Which demonstrates that the "all your other software" claim is false.
He directly referenced Linux which is famously under GPLv2. You can argue with this wording if you like, but his observation is spot on and it's obvious to those are not unduly biased that he was speaking about the GPL and the licenses that were similar to it.
> He directly referenced Linux which is famously under GPLv2.
Sure, he used it as an example, but he also explicitly made a generality about open source software, not the GPLv2. In any case, what he said was wrong about Linux, wrong about the GPL (including GPLv2), and wrong about open source software, so arguing over which of those he was talking about is a sideshow.
> You can argue with this wording if you like, but his observation is spot on
No, its absolutely, completely false. You can use -- or even distribute -- "open source software" (or GPL software, or Linux specifically) without "all your other software" being required to become open source.
By use it is pretty obvious he meant incorporate it as part of their products (ex. utilize a GPL library). Microsoft is a software development shop after all.
It seems to me like he was purposefully taking a hard political stance on a nuanced issue in order to drive people who are uninformed or unsure about these things into his own company's pen. It has nothing to do with linux, GPL, or any technicality, and everything to do with perceptions, executive policy, and business culture.
What I think is "obvious to those who are not unduly biased" is that he was cherrypicking the most extreme example (the restrictive GPL license, which is not used by most open source software[1]), and then trying to use that to spraypaint FUD over the (much) broader open source concept as a whole.
"Open source is not available to commercial companies" is about as factually incorrect as any statement in the English language can aspire to be.
" Craig Mundie remarked, "This viral aspect of the GPL poses a threat to the intellectual property of any organization making use of it."[35] In another context, Steve Ballmer declared that code released under GPL is useless to the commercial sector (since it can only be used if the resulting surrounding code becomes GPL), describing it thus as "a cancer that attaches itself in an intellectual property sense to everything it touches"."
It seems even the Wiki editors believe he was speaking about the GPL.
If any of that FUD were true, how do you explain that Microsoft has been shipping the "Subsystem for UNIX-based Applications" add-on for Windows Server for a decade, while Ballmer was CEO?
It includes GPL-licensed programs such as GCC and GDB; shouldn't Microsoft have released the source code of Windows Server by now if these statements weren't anything but FUD?
That was 2001. There was no SAS loophole to exploit. If you desired to sell software, you had to ship it. In a box. The GPL was as viable for businesses back then as the AGPL is today.
> That was 2001. There was no SAS loophole to exploit. If you desired to sell software, you had to ship it.
People have been selling access to remotely hosted services since long before 2001 (since before the web, the FSF/GPL, or even the internet or even ARPAnet existed.)
The thing now referred to as "SaaS" has been a thing a lot longer than the name "Software-as-a-Service" or the acronym "SaaS" to refer to the concept has existed.
"After a year and a half of public consultation, thousands of comments, and four drafts, version 3 of the GNU General Public License (GPLv3) was finally published on June 29, 2007."
He is right about GPL. But there is a loop hole behind it, which all the open source companies use it. If the software is behind a web UI it does not need to be released back as a open source. Thats how all other big companies like Google, Facebook does not need to open source their source code back.
> Ballmer was good at sales but horrible at running a company
From Wikipedia:
Under Ballmer's tenure as CEO, Microsoft's annual revenue surged from $25 billion to $70 billion, while its net income increased 215 percent to $23 billion
May all companies suffer equally incompetent CEOs.
No doubt Microsoft under ballmer launched quite a few failed products, but they've maintained their monopolies and have made record profits in the process.
Having grown up in a big city like Chicago, yes, ambition gets drilled into you at a young age. My dad was pretty ambitious and many of my extended family are the same way. So I turned out to be as ambitious as they are. Now that I'm 35, it seems that all those years of having spent "making sacrifices" were both good and bad.
I had to move to Minnesota to learn what it meant to have community. I'm a regular church attender but never really took part in church community life until, oh, 4 years ago. Prior to that I had friends but it was an arm's length friendship.
Having traveled, and some times traveling alone, true friends are a rarity and, even though the fame and glamour of a career is amazing, what the author's sister had was far more worthwhile knowing that as she passed, there were people around her that cared and loved her. I'm guilty of assessing small town people as "simple" but in reality, while some crave simplicity, it's not all that bad because these are people who genuinely care for each other's needs and burdens.
One thing I took away from that article is that my ambition - though good - can be used to help the people I love. If my ambitions drives me to make more or earn more, then there's no stopping me from giving more. Community is, in a sense, all about giving abundantly and receiving well.
Angular 1.x is complicated and kludgy, IMO. It's not bad but it had a steep learning curve. Angular 2.0 should alleviate those problems. I've been using Aurelia a bit here and there and like it a lot. I think Aurelia's rigid, opinionated structure is clearer and succinct than Angular's more "framework" approach.
I disagree, I've been dabbling with OrientDB (graph database) and found that while graph databases have its own set of complexities, at the end of the day, you get a bit more structure and depth with graph databases.
If you're structuring data with hierarchies, graph databases are highly dependable. Not that you can't do this with SQL it's just more difficult. Not to mention that relational databases have costly JOIN's which is not a thing for graph databases.
I like the fact that you guys are sampling more and more of the web rather than sticking to the top 9K sites. This will make fixing issues in one browser less of an issue (hopefully I'm crossing my fingers).
My biggest pet peeve with Google has always been their slow roll out of non-search and ad products. They could have shook the ISP world with Google Fiber. They carry the clout necessary to get stuff done. Rather they did a slow roll out and that lottery style is less hopeful and more aggravating.
A lot of the products Google has released were either terrible, stupid, or makes you go "WTF?". Google Glass was so worthless that I often wondered why they even bothered. I think Hololens will move the market regardless of its success. It might take MS one or two iterations to get it right, but if MS is willing to become bellicose on its strategy, people will take risks and develop. If Google had pushed out Fiber to more cities in a shorter period of time, I think Google could easily expand its product line beyond search and ads.
GFiber roll-out is largely gated on the local municipalities. It takes years to cut through the bureaucratic red-tape of getting a right-of-way to run fiber to the home, and in many cases, the utility poles they use are owned by their competitors. The reason they started with Kansas City was because it features an integrated city, county, and utility government, and so they could negotiate with one entity and get all the permits necessary without having to go between dozens of competing interests. Same reason it will never come to San Francisco; CEQA means that any single property-owner along the fiber route can block the whole project, and there are a number of homeowners in San Francisco who don't exactly like Google.
My fiancee's taking a land-development course, detailing all of the things you have to go through to bring water, electricity, sewage, Internet to a new area, all the utilities we take for granted. The professor is a guy who spent pretty much his entire career, 16 years, doing one deal (from which he personally netted tens of millions in profit). That should give you an idea of the timescale that public utilities operate on.
Developers who use the MS ecosystem knows that their tooling is what makes MS ecosystem worth it. They released Community edition of Visual Studio which is the same as VS Professional but for open-source and independent developers.
.net core is now open source and can run on Linux/OS X. It can also use docker, that just made my skill set more appealing. These "marginal" improvements are actually huge steps for developers. For one, MS is leveraging what non-MS developers utilize. Doing so will make their product flexible and developers happy. WPF is getting a boost so that a single app can be written for multiple viewports in Windows 10. That'll simplify development.
I use Amazon Glacier storage for my backups. It's pretty cheap, I backed up 161GB for around $1.70/month. Since I took an Amazon AWS survey, I received a $25 promotion for AWS so my Glacier storage is paid for the next 2 years. :)
