ontilt
Re:My verdict on the Scala language
on Monday August 10, 2009 @03:10PM (#753756)
I had success compiling a small-scale mixed Scala and Java project. scalac takes both .java and .scala sources without much fuss, in my experience. I think this is an area that's improved a lot since the author wrote about it.
Re:Georgia Tech's Advanced Technology Development Center now open to m...
on Monday July 27, 2009 @01:24PM (#726257)
I worked part-time at an ATDC company while I was in school at Tech. It was a scrappy startup with a lot of smart people. Overall, it was a very positive experience.
Re:AnandTech on the New 15-Inch MacBook Pro's Battery Life
on Monday June 15, 2009 @05:23PM (#659115)
In this case, the reviewer is the very same Anand that built the respected site.
Re:Web Applications Should Be Compiled
on Tuesday June 02, 2009 @04:21PM (#638554)
I've done a lot of webapp development in both Java and Rails. I would agree that the iteration cycle is shorter in Rails, but it's not as bad as your description makes it sound. If you have to redeploy a jar file as part of your development process, then that's a problem with your process, not your language.
When I do Java webapp development in Eclipse, it compiles and hot-swaps my code in the background without requiring any restart or redeployments. Works pretty well.
I do have to restart occasionally because the hot-swapping has limitations, so that does slow things down a bit, but when you consider the time saved by having good compiler integration, then I don't think there's a big difference in productivity.
Re:Scala is Not a Functional Programming Language
on Thursday May 14, 2009 @09:21PM (#609855)
...not that there's anything wrong with that. I love the conciseness of Scala compared to Java and, even if it's not as elegant as a pure functional language, it seems like a great language for Getting Things Done.
Re:Scala is Not a Functional Programming Language
on Thursday May 14, 2009 @09:10PM (#609846)
I've been hacking in Java, Ruby, and Haskell for some time and when I started learning Scala, I quickly came to the conclusion that it was much more like Ruby than it is like Haskell.
Re:Yes We Can. Ruby "require" over HTTP, That Is.
on Tuesday May 12, 2009 @04:26PM (#606110)
One solution could be to compare the downloaded file with an expected hash. That'd at least give you the opportunity to audit the code once. Something like...
require 'http://example.com/somelib.rb, '7361c1132d2ada0e987080100cfff5c1645c5e7d'
Re:Ask HN: What Would you want in a government API?
on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @05:30PM (#442398)
Something like this?
http://open.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/08/introducing-the-con...
Re:Ask HN: Is it worth switching to a Mac?
on Tuesday December 09, 2008 @06:02PM (#391980)
iShowU HD might be a suitable replacement for Camtasia.