skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Adding to all the good points that others mentioned, this sort of consistency only grows in importance in large companies where developers support many different projects. It allows you to focus on the business problems rather than spend time getting used to dozens of variations in the build themselves.

We had this problem with Ant many years ago. Everyone did their builds differently and half of them were subtly broken.
As long as citizens of Australia blame America and not their own politicians the status quo is safe, and pols can sell out without fear of repercussions.
I'm not sure about IDEs, but if you install Evil mode you get a pretty awesome text editor.
I have built their open source community edition, from source, and it is very serviceable. I prefer to pay for the ultimate edition but I could do my work with the open source version.

Yearly subscription pricing seems OK to me, with some allowance for giving companies adequate notice to re-subscribe.
Kickstarter is to help launch the infrastructure around it - the prototype at http://simpla.io is the frontend library, you can't save changes yet. We've built out most of the actual API (it's pretty minimal, clientside does all the heavy lifting), just need a few more things in place to get to private/public beta that we won't be able to do in a reasonable timeframe without a bit of extra runway - hence the small campaign.
Probably worth noting that Dashing uses gridster.js: http://gridster.net/

Which also depends on jQuery.
Design Patterns! As you said your problem is "how to decompose into classes/methods/libraries"

Book wise, I learnt them from "Head first design patterns" which is useful and fun or for a quicker overview - http://www.java2s.com/Tutorials/Java/Java_Design_Patterns/in... .

Also remember if you have other people around you delegate / meet them / bounce ideas together.
What Web Development's History Can Tell Us About the Future of Mobile Apps
This isn't new, well for intelliJ at least. I bought IJ 12x, and was a little saddened when they changed to the sub model. However it's still a great tool and i prefer it over the others, therefore still use it. It just means i'm forced to use the community edition, or EAP.

Loyalty is as good as the product; if another product comes along and makes my life easier i would switch.
It's almost an abbreviation for summary!
How to Create the Ultimate Post on Social Media
> Perhaps the problem doesn't fit into an object oriented solution.

Or if not the problem, then my brain.

> You could try learning a functional language and see if you find it fitting better.

I come from a physics/science background; what I've seen of functional languages feel natural.

I bought my first book on design patterns 12 years ago (Head First Design Patterns). I worked my way through and it didn't make sense. I've dipped into PoEAA and Gang of Four since, with the same problem. The flow-chart-esque (UML) diagrams, the way messy life is meant to fit patterns... it didn't gel.

Time to try again, but I fancy learning a functional language first :)
People will pay $5K more for an equivalent Toyota. It doesn't mean they are doing horrible math. Maybe they've sold a previous Toyota and realized, used, they bring in significantly more than the Chevy.
Why Samsung’s new smartwatch doesn’t run Android
Hawaii First to Harness Deep-Ocean Temperatures for Power
Don't know why you're downvoted, this was a very ignorant statement, no matter how you look at it.
There's no way for us to know unless Jetbrains shares their renewal percentage rate. In a similar business I was exposed to, 60% was considered pretty good. It wasn't exactly the same type of product, so I could be way off here.
But what if they gonna stab somebody or somebody gonna stab them? I can see the purpose of solitary confinement. It might have been misused (like everything else). If the solution is better trained prison guard, or an alternative "nicer confine area" which cost more tax money, it seems pointless. Of course we need better prison guard operation process, but all you gonna get is "they are trying their best" kind of answer.
This is so terrible, it's good.
Build a DYI water ph-conductivity metter on a budget
The article talks about these sensors not being used for photo or video but rather as vision sensors for cars, robots, etc
I doubt it. As another poster pointed out, phone companies are still offering payment plans on new phones, so to an approximation all they're really offering is a bit more price transparency on the same old pricing model.

Also, let's be blunt: Users of Apple products aren't exactly the most price-sensitive consumers in the market. If anything, it'll just make them less likely to buy new phones like clockwork every two years. But if so then probably all smartphone manufacturers will experience something similar.
Everyone's style is going to be differ on the high-level stuff - and you are surely well beyond the point where any random blog post blabbing about software architecture can guide you.

Keep walking back to the user and business requirements when you're in doubt. In senior technical positions, you aren't focused on immediate issues in the code, so much as on developing the right processes to attack those problems. Software isn't expected to last very long, and when it does it's both miraculous and ugly, as the tools and techniques become more and more arcane over time. If the solution you develop can satisfy all parties for an extended period, it is as correct as you can hope for - and part of that involves choosing a technical process that can be kept running in an environment of some ineptitude.

When you know the requirements, model the data first. Data comes first because data lasts longer than code. Flexible data lets you do more with less code. And if the data is very well defined you can usually use fewer language features, too - which is a bonus to maintenance later. Think of features in data terms first and lifecycles later.

The best-practices cruft you've learned over time - that's going to have to be sacrificed when you identify ways that your designs can be simpler. You may identify a pattern that is useful but not "with the grain" of the languages you're using. That doesn't mean it's wrong, just that you're breaking past some known boundaries of programming.

As you know, most projects get dirty in order to ship. Not doing that means doing basic research to find the ideal technique, whereas there's always room to tolerate a few more hacks, global flags, mystery-meat callbacks, etc. Your best defense is for the data to be so good that all the code can remain disposable and the system will still turn out more-or-less the same way if rewritten from scratch, with a different-but-equally-awful set of hacks and kludges.

Under the pressure of strong data, code that sticks around after several cycles of disposal becomes the library code by default - and internal APIs will become strong enough to prevent a "lava layer" from taking root, because they'll consistently solve the immediate problem faster than any wrapper layer. The maintainers will feel like geniuses because they'll keep finding clever ways to use the existing data better, instead of mashing out another travesty of reflection and classes-on-top-of-classes.

If data isn't sufficient, you may also have to define a protocol. Protocols, if they work correctly, compact the state management into a small part of the app, and leave you with more data.
A. being at Harvard, is a huge advantage in of itself. B. having a roommate with enough money to invest in it was a huge advantage. C. Being rich enough to attend a full time and not work a job to support him self.

There are a ton more to keep going on.
People are more price-conscious than you'd think. I mean, even Apple -- the brand that cater the most to the price-insensitive -- has always sold a decent number of its $550 and $450 phones.

The more people see real prices, even if they finance them, the more they're going to reconsider the definition of "splurging."
If you use React, there's react-grid-layout: https://strml.github.io/react-grid-layout/examples/0-showcas...
I think you're misreading this.

It's more along the lines of 'you don't have to run a $1bn+ business to be successful' – that is, by chasing after the very unlikely dream of becoming one of the vanishingly small number of $1bn+ companies, you are ignoring the possibility of becoming a thoroughly successful $n-million sized company, and focusing on the wrong metrics.

There's no shame in building what would by any means be a large, successful company just because it doesn't break the $1bn barrier – but making that the goal is a weird choice. Like the article says:

'The better goal? Keep your head down, make a great product, and build a successful business.'

If you have an idea and execution that is worth $1bn+ then great! Hopefully it will pay off. But it shouldn't be the goal; develop a good product and sell it well. Take the opportunities you can to build a market. Maybe you'll make it to $1bn+! But maybe you won't – and that's ok.
I always hoped that one of these let's force everyone into software subscriptions-actions would become such an embarrassment that companies will think twice about doing this.

Given how much I like IntelliJ (and liked JetBrains until they pulled this off), I'd be a bit sad if they would be that example.

I am still hoping for a quick follow-up announcement that they have listened to their customers and decided to keep the old licensing model as-is. If not, I cannot trust them anymore. How do I know that they won't change the rules of the game again with just two month's notice?

(Note: I am not principally against subscriptions, though I do think the model puts customers in a weaker position. Just offer people an alternative, or give them plenty of heads-up time.)
Code it each way and post it online and someone will tell you with absolute certainty that you are Doing It Wrong because <some fashionable pattern>. Take this person's recommended implementation and post it online and someone else will tell you, again with absolute certainty, that you are Doing It Wrong because <some other fashionable pattern>.

All the while never mind that in 9/10 cases you could have written it either way and it would be of sufficient quality and performance, run more or less without issues for years, be conducive enough to periodic refactoring, etc.

I have a similar feeling as you about software today, although I'm not sure if for the same reasons. I look around me and everything is just so damn complicated. Writing code that is small and understandable is ruthlessly mocked, while a gigantic, complex marvel of engineering (that does the exact same thing) is looked upon as The Right Way. Functionality that would take a week or two to implement 15 years ago now takes a month, or three.
In the .net Environment Visual Studio and frameworks change fast enough that we are 1.5 year upgrading resharper ultimate already. I don't see this as a big issue. Pricing is appropriate and seems better for individual developers than it was prior.
Experience a unique demo of the app with your very own logo
The Leadenhall Building
I bought my first "Head First Design Patterns" 12 years ago, worked through it, and it didn't make sense. I've dipped into PoEAA and Gang of Four since, with the same problem. The way messy life is meant to fit patterns... it didn't gel.

Any thoughts?

And thanks for your great reminder about meeting up to bounce ideas around. I'm going looking for them.
Meh, the only real issue there is the phoning home. The other issues he points out seem pretty contrived.
How are sports statistics collected in real time
Apple's $650 flagship will probably continue to do fine. But the $450 phones really got a lot of mileage from being "free." If you were buying a phone in 2012 from a normal contract carrier, there really wasn't any way to pay less than $450, because $450 was $0.

With real pricing, a $350 phone is $100 less, and anyone who was considering buying a two-year-old phone to save $200 is probably very interested in saving another $100.
Sinister Stingrays – FBI Surveillance Takes a Hit
Looks like Atom and related packages are about to get a lot more users.
It's my personal opinion that one only gets complaining rights if one doesn't use Gmail, one doesn't subscribe to NetFlix, one doesn't use Spotify, ad nauseum.

JetBrains is making a business decision. That's what businesses do. Their current Community Edition is open-source. Anyone is free to pick up where they left off. That is an enormous contribution they've already made to the community. You make your consumer decision. They make their business decision. This is the implicit but very real relationship any customer of theirs has chosen to be in.

I personally don't agree with their decision. But, I'm not running their business or working their jobs. Before going all "They're Google Reader'ing Us.", just ask yourself, do you use Gmail? Are you willing to continue their work on the Community Edition?

edit: to clarify my examples.

The services I referenced where chosen as examples of alternatives to options such as hosting one's own email or using existing perpetually or open-sourced licensed products (Gmail), a company that drastically revised it's product offering (NetFlix), and a company who's founder destroyed the business model of purchasing a c.d. for life by making mp3's user friendly and then went legit by moving to a SaaS model (Spotify).

As others have pointed out, one can still purchase a perpetual license through November, so JetBrains is not only not stealing back the product they sold you, they are also giving you time whether you'd like to make this transition with them. If not, simply do not purchase their product in the future. To expect JetBrains to do otherwise (maintain their business model) is to tell them how to make very basic decisions about how they run their business and live their lives. That, I think, is bad.

tl;dr: They didn't steal anything. Don't tell people how to live their lives.
And, more important, don’t focus on growing to become a $10mil/yr business – if there is no need to expand, just don’t expand.

If your business is only profitable by constantly expanding, it will crash soon. If you have a smaller, but sustainable business, your company might be around in a few centuries still.

This is how a lot of small businesses in Europe work, and how they continued to exist for a millenium.
Where JetBrains went wrong is in spreading themselves too thin on too many development fronts, letting products like IntelliJ languish with few significant features added and far too many bugs unfixed, and then deciding the solution to a lack of effort on these products was to switch to a subscription model so that all of their customers would pay for the updates whether or not they're worth paying for.
It feels dismissive to write this, but:

Every VC I've ever talked to --- middle double digits over 3 different startups --- has told me this story about how they're not looking for "10-baggers" or "unicorns" or whatever it is they're calling them these days. They want to invest in founders, trust that a good team will come up with ways to make money if they just stay out of the way, &c &c zzz.

The fact is that the economics of venture capital pretty much depend on most/all of a portfolio's investments having some shot at becoming outlandishly successful. The winners have to pay for the losers.
He had the resource of being in the right place at the right time (i.e., market opportunity). Facebook did not exist at the time, and the social media market, which a college student could disrupt, wasn't saturated. What would he have started today? We can look at Airbnb or Uber as this decade's runaway success, but neither of those could have been started by a solo college student. Don't underestimate the power of luck in determining startup winners and losers.
Better the devil you know.
How to Pick the Best Idea for Your Next Business
It's quite clear that there's a general perception that bigger is better. The fact that some VCs are investing in smaller businesses doesn't negate that.
For 600 people complaining: https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/3ji148/jetbrai...
Russia tried that. When the USSR ended, they gave every one vouchers to bid for shares of state owned companies. The little people had no idea what they were doing and got screwed brutally. It created many of the ridiculously wealthy Russian oligarchs you see today.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privatization_in_Russia
For example...

Welcome to DrRacket, version 6.2 [3m].
Language: racket; memory limit: 128 MB.
> (= (+ 0.1 0.2) 0.3)
#f
> (= (+ 1/10 2/10) 3/10)
#t
Node.js Foundation Elects Board of Directors
Does this paper establish prior art for a whole bunch of software patents?
The problem I have with subscription model for my tools is this: It removes the option for me to decide to not upgrade because the improvements are not worth the cost.

Note that I have been upgrading my license most every year, but chances are I'll just make do with what I have next time around.

If the current pricing model isn't viable for them, I'm sorry, but it is not my problem. It's already the most I pay for any tool I use, and I have found it worth it so far, but coercion into a subscription model just doesn't work for me.

Not a great move by JetBrains.
Because it was a comment that added no valuable content about a statement that while not literally accurate, had a rhetorical intent that was plainly obvious.
You do realize that they haven't really changed their pricing model, right? They just changed how it's presented. It's always been a subscription if you want new features in an IDE (which most people do). I pay like $100/year for PHPstorm upgrades, and it's well worth the cost given the benefits that one receives from using the software (mostly in terms of productivity).

Yes, renting software is a skeezy model. Yes, they should still allow people to purchase perpetual licenses (which, for the record, you can still do until November). Yes, this could have been communicated differently and with more notice.

No, it's not the end of the world. A company has to make money, and at the end of the day, I'd much rather give my money to Jetbrains than many other companies because I know they make excellent tools that facilitate my ability to produce excellent software.
I agree with a TDD, but it really depends on the framework/cms you're working, some of them are incredibly hard to write tests agaist. One of the examples would be writing unit tests for the WordPress plugin, if you're sticking to the WordPress way of coding unit testing is practically impossible because there is lot's of database access and events which do mess up.

You can write plugin folowing OO principles and abstract things out to be able to mock them as nessesery. It really depends on the coding standarts you're folowing.

As for unit testing. In my personal experience it enforces you to write cleaner code, because when I started I had to do heavy refactoring to be able to test my prototype, but as I wrote more testable code I started separate unrelated parts which reduced amount of spagetti code.

Another way to achieve cleaner code in my opinion would be design patters which lets you separate code logically(for example MVC), and make some things cleaner(I'm big fan of laravel's Facades for example).
Moving or converting cities does seem like an incredible undertaking. However, it also looks like making the world reign in its carbon emissions sufficiently has been tried and is not yet successful; maybe it's actually impossible as opposed to just difficult. At least changing the world to adapt to climate change doesn't have the tragedy of the commons working against it, because when a local government works to prepare for whatever is going to happen, the benefit accrues locally to the people making the sacrifice.

I read several of javert's posts, and I don't get the impression of a troll.
I reject the idea that this is an OO problem. These same problems would exist in the form of functional programming, except it would be "functions" instead of "methods"
Really? I mean I used Eclipse for years prior to VS and IntelliJ. IntelliJ wins hands down. This pricing model though.... upsets me.
Give yourself some time to get back to healthy... any kind of health issue can cloud your judgement. I always try to refrain from making big decisions when I'm not feeling good. Shingles sucks, and the pain can linger... hope you're doing better now!
Community Edition is still totally awesome for what it is right?
Quick question -- do you use unit tests?
P(my business becoming a billion dollar business) (~0.0005%) * (1-P(me saying "no" to letting my business become a billion dollar business) (~0.0005%)) is still 0.00000499997. Nothing to worry about, Budman.

OR

Has Budman just written this article as psychological warfare against any soft targets who might be competing against his future billion dollar business? The plot thickens.
الامارات+تعلن+مقتل+22+من+جنودها+في+اليمن
I read quite a bit on my iPhone (several books a month) and watch nearly all my TV/videos on it. If you really like iOS as apposed to Android or Win10, then it isn't that hard to justify spending a few hundred more on a device that gets hours of use every single day. And will resell in 2 years for quite a bit more than the competition.
Yoot Tower was actually the sequel to SimTower, not the Japanese name for it.
I didn't miss the point. I just happen not to agree with it 100%, by which I mean that building any sort of business that just survives tends to be incredibly hard work and high risk, and even then most don't build long term value or throw off six figure salaries year in and out. 37 Signals is still a unicorn, just not in the VC sense. That's why another 36 similar companies don't immediately leap to mind.

The quantum step in risk is from wage worker to self-employee, and two year's toil with no net income for a little thing makes less sense than for a big thing. The article pretends that little things are sure things. They aren't.
Cheaper LIDAR is good, but my money is on an array of super cheap cameras and better image recognition to get the additional cost of "self driving" down low. Also, cameras are lower profile than LIDAR (looks matter in cars...)
I'm going to take a wild guess and suggest this was driven by the CFO trying to provide better predictive earnings to their shareholders. It may also enable them to plan developer recruitment better but this feels very shareholder driven.

Personally, Webstorm is exceptional and worth every penny.
Hello tearing my old friend...
I think their all-you-can-eat subscription deal is pretty good value. I use Intellij Ultimate but I have messed around with Appcode and Rubymine in the past and wanted to give CLion a go. I remember a while ago thinking 'surely they do some all you can eat package' and finding they didn't. This has answered it.

Realise that the same model doesn't work for everyone but the subscription deal for all-you-can-eat is damn good.
This is a pretty tight article, and really gives a great feeling for the decline of AC. I was last in AC in 2010-- it was clear that the city was on its last legs then. The general appearance was massive casinos surrounded by desolate empty lots.

We could hardly find a slice of pizza.
I think JetBrains miscalculated just how much people like the current licensing model.

I liked their first model - I paid for it and just used it. The current model, with the yearly upgrade premium, I tolerated. I felt it was a scam (are they going to publish an update in the next year so I get my money's worth? Probably not) but I could deal with it.

This new model doesn't work for me at all. As someone who bought his own license, used it at work, and got 3 employers to switch to it -- this doesn't feel right. I am reminded of Altova. They turned their $120 XML editor into a $999 enterprise behemoth. I haven't recommended them in over 10 years.