skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Hmm.. this viewpoint needs a bit of balancing:
- An employer has money and needs a developer. A developer needs the money. If the employer has foresight, then the developer is at a disadvantage in this early stage of the relationship because it allows the employer to put out a ridiculous sounding job requirement yet still get a decent developer by playing the numbers game (interview lots of devs; hire one temporarily and fire them if they're no good.. then hire another etc...).

With that in mind, lets look at the points:
#1) We need some guy who should probably know all these things because we use them all.. somewhere.. in our organization. The more they know all these thing, the more useful they'll be to us from day 1.

#2) We need someone who has a pair. Either from experience or sheer will. Come in and show us that you're the one we need. If the big numbers scare you, then you're probably not our guy anyway. We also use a few old technologies that have served us very well - it would be fantastic if you already know them.

#3) You're not a unique or a beautiful little snowflake. You'll find out how we work when you get here. If you can't adapt, you'll leave - probably against your will.

#4) The last guy who did this job was awesome. He worked hard to help us become who we are now. We expect no less of you.

#5) We do things a certain way and it seems to be working for us. We expect you to respect that, considering we don't even know you yet. You'll have plenty of opportunity to help make this a more welcoming place if a) we hire you, and b) you don't forget all these pain points once you come on board, and are motivated to do more than just your job description.

Jobs are like girlfriends (or boyfriends) are like most relationships. They may or may not start out smoothly. You'll find out that they're single (existence of job ad), kinda cute ($, benefits), and maybe, but they might only be nice to their friends and a firewall to everyone else (job description / initial response etc..). They are all different, and it is up to you to find one to fall in-love with.
U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time
Google Maps for BlackBerry Gets a Major Upgrade
Of course, this is just a quick and cheap way to do a market research, I specify that in the screencast.
I think it's impossible to write one, to be honest. Most jobs suck, and it's impossible to select words that would lead a person to infer a better than 50% chance of non-suckitude.
EBay to pay damages to gold buyer
Linked from the article, patent application for game cotroller shell:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/193322/is_apple_developing_ga...
Someone should edit the title for this post -- theflashblog.com is not an offical Adobe blog, and the post is simply the reaction of one Adobe employee. This is not the 'official Adobe response'.
That's what he just said. Don't develop for the platform you dislike/don't agree with the policies of/etc.
I wish I could understand what's behind the 5 Guys hype - has anyone seen an analysis of that? It's definitely not the food quality. I've eaten at a few of their locations and their burger patties are thin and utterly flavorless. Even factoring that its a fast-food burger, it still pales in comparison to say, NYC's Shake Shack or DC's Elevation Burger, and of course if you're not talking fast food burgers, all bets are off (e.g. Ray's Hellburger in VA).

I'd like to understand why they're so popular, just to understand what makes the business really tick. I don't think it's about the food quality; I'm guessing it's a sort of social status thing - being "in the know" by going there?
It makes more sense than it sounds.

Client-side: Punch tape goes in, results come out. The idea of a server doesn't make sense because there isn't enough power for time sharing.

Server-side: We have powerful enough computers to timeshare, but computers are too expensive to have less powerful ones for everyone.

Client-side: a computer for each person doing more elaborate things is cheaper than a mainframe. Bandwidth is expensive, so it doesn't make sense to deliver all but the most basic GUIs remotely. (How many people were using remote X applications across the world in 1989?)

Server-side. Maintaining application executables (upgrades on all machines, security rights, telecommuting and mobile computing) is more expensive than putting it all on a web server. However, interpreted languages are just a bit too slow to run on their own. (Java was a viable option, but applets never caught on for many reasons, one of which was that Sun didn't put the work in to make the GUIs pleasant to use.)

Now, we have client side computers and javascript interpreters powerful enough to develop client side utilities that can be dynamically loaded, giving developers the best of both worlds. The balance switched again in favor of client-side applications. I expect this to hold for a while, until bandwidth and centralized processing power overtakes individual client machines to make server-side applications more valuable again.
I think I've been brainwashed because I had immediate involuntary disdain for the guy because it says he's a Flash Evangelist at the top of the page.
Bullshit. Any software running on the iPhone has to be running in the same way that 'native' apps are, whether or not they're running through an intermediary layer; they interact with the system in the exact same way.

If iPhone applications ran on a layer like the Dalvik VM or .NET, allowing reflection to do things like suspend and restore applications automagickly, this argument could hold water, but we're talking about unmanaged code with no real metadata (outside of the obj-c interface metadata) to speak of. This argument is completely and utterly nonsensical.
Unfortunately they haven't learned the other part of their history that got them almost bankrupted.
> My point is only that I don't see what there is to complain about. I wouldn't complain about this any more than I would about not being able to write apps for my current crappy cellphone.

Really? When I had a crappy cellphone, I complained that the WAP browser was constrained to my provider's walled garden. I managed to crack it enough get out and even write my own WAP applications. So not only did I complain, I did something about it.

I also complain that my stupid DVD player doesn't let me skip over FBI warnings and previews. The fact that it was designed that way on purpose, doesn't mean it isn't something worth complaining about.

I think it's funny you feel complaining about the complaining is important but the original issue is not significant in comparison.
To all the haters, paul_irish has been consistently one of the most helpful people in #jquery on freenode, and I'm so happy for him. If he's the one who's going to be writing HTML5 documentation for Chrome, then that's EXCELLENT news for developers, because I know from personal experience that he has a very friendly and intelligent way of communicating.
FWIW, I'm an Irishman living in the UK, and I judge what I see.
Yep...I got my Nexus one almost entirely because Apple blocked the Google Voice app. That pissed me off.

After using it for a few months it's pretty clear that the hardware is superior to the iPhone but the software is not quite as good yet (side from Google Voice native app and the GPS navigation which is outstanding). It still feels a little buggy and beta compared to iPhone OS. That being said I am seriously rooting for Google on this one and I hope they get there soon.

There is one other big advantage Google has over Apple in this race - all their data is already in the cloud. When I booted up my Nexus One for the first time, I entered one login/password and boom, it had all my contacts, email, calendar, documents, etc etc.

Android FTW!
So, any idea what's caused the drop since about a month ?
No, they just prevented them from shipping software by default. No OEM was going to say, you know what, Netscape is more important to me than being in business. That's just a business deal. But as a user you could always just install it yourself. It was all about market share, there was no actual limitations on the device. This is about materially impacting WHAT YOU CAN DO ON THE DEVICE, as both a user (certain apps unavailable, this will make it worse) and as a developer. Microsoft never did anything like that on the scale Apple is doing now.
Thanks! I'm really intrigued with Smalltalk by way of Squeak (I've been working through Squeak by Example). I wasn't sure where I should be looking regarding web development. Thanks for your sharing!
Founders don't usually get preferred stock.
That is on my list ;)
Like Dave Morin on the Facebook platform?

How bout Twilio? I'm sure Twilio's trying to actively waste money

http://twilio.jobscore.com/jobs/twilio/developerevangelist/a...
If you need Lisp, Python, or Ruby to increase your productivity to cut corners on web development times, perhaps that means you're not charging enough for your services.

Java or bust! Level the playing field.
Tutoring software reads body language and facial expressions
Oh, I never questioned their right to do so. My comment was meant literally: They look silly to me.
Appcelerant's measured response to the iPhone PL issue
IIRC, PG does point out a few times that you really do have to be a fool to start a business this way... if you're doing it for the money or other consequences of success, because success is unlikely even for the best. There are other reasons to try starting an all-in style business; reasons that don't appeal to me, but they do appeal to other people.
Definitely. After all, other closed restrictive platforms such as games consoles only contain rubbish.

For every clojure zealot, there are probably 10 objective-c developers who will be happy with less competition.
would love it if you could provide me details about pro-bloggers thank arpitnext .. appreciate your help
Yeah, but the ones who care seem increasingly likely to get violated by Apple. Thursday I was "someone who cared and was in it for the money", today I'm not. :)
A truckload of games have interpreters, coming either from indie developers or major publishers. None of these will be able to update their games to the new SDK.

Regarding the interpreters, I used to be right, but it changed at one point. Quoting Henk Boom on the Lua mailing list:

[[ I thought this was already the case. From an excerpt of the agreement
on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPhone_OS#Java

"No interpreted code may be downloaded or used in an Application
except for code that is interpreted and run by Apple’s Documented APIs
and built-in interpreter(s)."

I've read that the "or" in "downloaded or used" was originally an
"and," but that Apple changed it at some point. ]]
As much as I'd like to agree with you, that is simply not going to happen. Do you seriously think companies/developers like EA, Cultured Code, Omni Group etc are going to leave the app store just because apps written in Scheme or Actionscript or .Net are not welcome on the app store?

Again, as much as I'd like to agree with you, none of the prominent app developers are going to be leaving anytime soon. And, as for people who make Farting apps, they probably wont care anyways because use Objective-C or Actionscript, the apps are rather simple anyways. The efficiency of writing code probably wont matter to them.
StartUp48: 48 hours from concept to demo, Chicago, April 17-18 @ TechNexus
An invaluable technique is to list more years of experience with a particular technology than it has been in existence.

A couple of years ago there were a flurry of postings for developers with at least 10 years' experience in RoR.
Really good point mentioned by the author, "Apparently every game produced by EA on the App Store would be in violation of the terms due to the fact they use Lua for scripting."

Does Apple really expect EA to select a new scripting language for their games or block scripting/add-ons on the iPhone/Pad versions?
All of them. When the Mac first came out, long long ago, Dearly Beloved, they had a development package you had to buy if you wanted to develop for the Mac. The IBM PC, as inferior as its UI was, had free tools, and soon had actual compilers (!).

As a result, the Mac's toolset essentially consisted of whatever Apple had written, for a couple of years, while development for the PC exploded instantaneously and you could do anything at all with it -- even if it looked like crap, you could actually do what you wanted, and soon enough, Windows came out and it looked less like crap.

Jobs has just barely learned the lesson of 1983. There are lots of apps available for the iPhone and iPad. What he hasn't learned is the larger lesson, which is that owning an entire market might be lucrative in the short term, but in the longer term it won't work.
You know, you could describe this project as GWT without Java and without the black box.
Abootstartups
Everyone and their mother have told you what it takes to get a startup off the ground. We didn't put this page up to teach anything, but to share some of the events that go without mention as a startup takes off. Abootstartups.com invites everybody that relates to share the events that never make it to light, so we can have a laugh and reminisce together!
Last year only, he worked on the project for four years and I don't think he made that amount in the first year.
You seriously think that if this were just a misunderstanding, they would let all of this Apple hate grow and grow for over 24 hours? They would have issued a statement clarifying things by the end of business hours yesterday if this "speculation" were wrong.
Everyone understands that. What people are pissed off about is the "originally" part. Lets agree that the only acceptable compiler is approved by Apple and that's it. Ok fine. Now what is the material difference between me hand typing code into a source file and building it with the compiler, or me generating the source file with a tool and then it gets compiled? Apple has no way to know that you have done the latter instead of the former - but they still have made this a reason to kick you out of the store. More importantly they have killed any tool that does the latter. This is not about closed walls and consoles. This would be like Sony telling Playstation developers they must type in Dvorak. They are going up the stack - into the actual way people are creating code - when there is no good reason to.
The main conclusion seems to be that "anything with the iAd logo is safe." I find that ludicrous on its face; any malware ads or scams will simply mimic the iAd logo, much like a few less-reputable AdSense look-alikes already exist. The apps running ads from networks with such hostile ads might get pulled, but it'll simply be a game of whack-a-mole.

I also don't know that advertisers will want overly iAd-branded ads, as that would risk diluting their own brand. But if it's not very overtly Apple-branded, the users won't feel any familiarity and the argument falls down again.

As for Google worrying about it, right now they're probably more worried about the FTC blocking the AdMob purchase and thus blocking them from even entering the mobile advertising space to begin with.
The trouble is that we will never hear their discontent
because Apple employees are forbidden from blogging,
posting to social networks, or other things that we at
companies with an open culture take for granted.

...

Comments are closed.

A little hypocritical don't you think?
(from 2007)
You know, this whole Apple thing finally makes sense to me.

They are simply trying to tie their developer community to their platform. Now is the time to do it, when competition is low. There's virtually no chance of this having any noticeable impact in its established community of developers. By year-end, when competition is a bit stronger, the groundwork they've put in place today will make it less likely that developers will bother to learn another platform.

Its what Microsoft did with Java and Netscape. It's what they did with IE.

I'm not saying its right. I'm just saying I finally understand it.

(and I know MS was sued, and lost, for each of those infractions).
I remember running a QNX OS demo in the late 90's or early 00's that ran live off a floppy disk.. (with full GUI and everything) this was a big deal at the time. I was amazed.
Dude, you're an out of touch yuppy.

They're popular because compared to similiarly priced fare (McDonalds/Wendy's) 5 Guys might as well be michelin rated.
Or you can go make an app for the android. I have a few phonegap applications I've been making for different projects. When I first started everyone had iPhones, now most of the clients have moved to droids (Verizon far outperforms ATT in NYC.) and the apps still work just fine.

In conjecture, making apps for the android is probably the biggest way you can make a difference, much more then convincing a few people not to drop a few hundred dollars over the next few months. Make a few big sellers on the Android market and you'll encourage app development and make some money.
A Better Work Environment
I really disagree with that hedge you're making there. I'm not a great scholar of Graham's work or anything, but my perception is that he's pretty much saying: "It is a good idea to work your ass off for 5-10 years so that you can work much less hard later on", with the modifier being "Do that when you're young so that if you fail the first time you can pick yourself up and do it again".

I don't recall him writing that it was a foolish thing to do. He acknowledges the risk of failure but doesn't ever seem to come to terms with the consequences of failure. Again, with the caveat that losing 5 years of your 20's isn't the worst thing in the world.

Until you're in your 30's and start thinking about what else you could have done with the time, I guess.
Seriously: if Barnes and Noble decides it only wants to sell fiction by authors whose last names begin with "Q", wouldn't we just consider it a bone-headed move, and not the cause for moral outrage?

That depends on if B&N is the only way for you to get books.

if you want to sell your app in my store, it's my business.

I agree with that, and if that's all it were I couldn't see people being outraged. But there's practically no other way to get apps on an iPhone.
More importantly the tools that do the transferring will get killed
Sorry, but I still don't see it.

The owner of a store has a moral obligation to sell all possible goods in that store?

If I have a grocery store, I need to sell every possible foodstuff? I'm not allowed to decide that I want to sell only Organic produce?
Are apple employees really forbidden from blogging and posting to social networks?
So, there are a couple things here that jump to my mind.

1. Adobe isn't completely innocent. They're pretty close to a monopoly on their type of software and charge dearly for it (their Creative Suite costs as much as a MacBook Pro). They've done a lot to make sure there are no non-Adobe Flash players even when that's just hurting customers and not costing them money since they don't sell the player. They're not exactly "open" and "free".

2. Apple could be said to have an interest in not supporting intermediaries. Intermediaries are likely to create less efficient code and I'm sure they don't want to deal with developers using up their support time over things that are the fault of Adobe's Flash SDK or Novell's C# one.

3. It's also in Apple's interest to get people using Objective-C and their toolkit. It brings developers to the Mac by forcing them to buy one. That will have positive externalities in more software for the Mac. It gets developers into the Obj-C camp which means more people with Mac development skills. It means that apps can't be re-compiled for iPhone, Android, and webOS - and that's huge for customer lock-in. We all know how users get attached to their apps and I think it's easy to imagine Adobe building an Android compiler right after the iPhone one got finished.

Do I like Apple's stance? No. As a user and a developer, it's bad for me. However, Apple's the market leader and getting people to use their API gives them control and means that app developers will always be ready to use the latest new features they add while building a wall of incompatibility against Android and webOS that will keep users buying iPhones for apps in the way that users bought Windows computers for their apps for ages.

Jobs wanted web apps. Developers balked. Web apps would have been cross-platform (at least with Android and webOS). Apple responded to developers and now they've seen their chance to lock users and developers to their system.

Adobe isn't known for being open. Given the chance, Adobe seems to wall itself off as much as Apple. Companies tend to go for openness insofar as it's in their interests.
Yeah, but the work I did was useless to me, and I couldn't resell it.

So something was stole from me, and that's the precious time I invested in it.

And I totally understand their decision to go to someone else, but then that someone else ripped-off my work. Sorry, but that shouldn't be legal ... the world is full of jackasses that don't give a shit about your needs or about the endless hours of work you've put into it.

The alternative to having laws that protect your property is anarchy ... making your own justice ... here's your software, it's DRMed, it regularly phones back home with logs of your activity, and I can shut it down with the push of a button. Enjoy!

Don't get me wrong ... 100 years of copyright is a lot. 10 years of protection would be much more appropriate. I'm not advocating against changes for the good of the public ... but having a healthy copyright law also encourages content-authors. So IMHO, all I'm saying is that we need copyright, not that it doesn't need changing.
We have something official, more official than any press release: the developer contract.

No matter what Apple says in the next few days, nothing short of removing the new clause can prevent Apple from enforcing it at will.
No. But I was assuming that readers and twitter repeaters are obfuscating the true reach.

Mostly, I was interested in the semi-parabolic rise.
> Now let me put aside my role as an official representative of Adobe for a moment . . .
What Microsoft did was in fact so much worse than what Apple is doing that the DOJ sued them for it and won.

I think the reason for the vitriol on this particular issue is that Apple is doing something that computer geeks don't think is correct, and computer geeks can't handle it when people do things "wrong".
"What is clear is that Apple has timed this purposely to hurt sales of CS5"

As many other commenters pointed out here, theflashblog.com is not an official Adobe blog.This is definitely not "Adobe's reaction" as the title suggests.
Thanks, Mike. We think the product is really interesting from a tech perspective. We're also looking to expand out to Facebook, iPad, and Android in the near future.
Mathematics Reveal Universal Properties Of Old Rope
Care to elaborate? I don't know Apple history too well, but I thought their near-bankruptcy was just because their products weren't very good and Microsoft was dominating the PC market.
> "An employer has money and needs a developer. A developer needs the money. If the employer has foresight, then the developer is at a disadvantage in this early stage of the relationship"

Frankly, if you approach hiring with this mindset you're only going to get a good developer through sheer luck. As evidenced from your justifications: you're searching for the cheapest cog.
Just to be clear, I'm not saying I want him dead or even the effects of that. I'm just speculating that many people probably do. You could not possibly disrespect me by saying anything about those hypothetical people because I do not embrace their position.
You can't compare it to burger joints in different regions. I like In n' Out better than Five Guys, but I can't exactly fly to CA to get my burger fix. Five Guys is the best fast food burger in their respective locations.