skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Something similar happened to me. I had several company accounts with a page on each. I tried to login one day and Facebook requested ID. It seemed to happen to me when I tried to login via incognito mode in Chrome (so that I didn't have to logout of my main account first).

I still haven't entered the ID but I manage one of the pages for a business (I also manage their website, twitter etc.) and I'm either going to have to enter the ID or give up the job.

I can't see any reason Facebook require this. It seems like real scummy practice.
I've never used Twitter or Facebook, and I have zero problem communicating with friends and family, nor have I noticed any difference in my communication with anyone regardless of wherever they spend their free time on the internet.

If someone can't be bothered to send you an e-mail or call, you might want to reconsider how close those people are to you.
Reminds me a bit from The Inner Product that basically said that context is the biggest hammer in the programmer's toolbox, and each layer of abstraction just adds more constraints.

It isn't the most common way of looking at it.

[1] http://twvideo01.ubm-us.net/o1/vault/GD_Mag_Archives/GDM_Jun...
> JS is slow because JS is slow.

JS is the fastest dynamic language next to SBCL's Common Lisp implementation.

> JavaScript is not well designed for work in a team environment, nor is it well designed for Large Code Bases.

Why is this a problem? Most web problems don't need a large code base. A small, dynamic language is suited to web problems. And judging by the amount of things being built with Javascript, enough people have figured out its quirks.

> All the best languages have a group of scientists that have chosen that language to be their defacto language. That is why we see Python, LISP, Fortran (yes still), MatLab, all living on long beyond the "trendy" languages.

To a certain degree I agree, at least about LISP and Fortran. You should add Haskell to the list. One language has also lived long beyond most of the trendy languages: COBOL. Take that for what it's worth.

> but JS for backend is like writing in Visual Basic. These days you can do anything in it, it will be fast, but that doesn't make it the right choice.

Why this is even an issue is beyond me. Nodejs is good for people writing a small backend to interact with a single page app on the client side. If you're writing giant Nodejs apps you're doing it wrong.

Besides, with pretty much every language having web frameworks and every language compiling to JS, you have plenty of choices.

Despite all of JS' quirks, people still write amazing things in it. That should tell you something.
geoarbitrage, my friend.

Work for clients in high cost-of-living countries. Spend your time in lower cost-of-living countries.

Instant lifestyle upgrade.

Aren't you a little old to still be using PHP? ;)
There is still some work to do. Read the paragraph about transclude : true? $transclude is one of the best features of advanced directives, and the paragraph is still the old one which leaves you with a "... what?" even after you read it 5 times. An example is very much in roder here, but how long should the article be? Before, this section was actually in the guide, and the doc for $compile was neat and clear. Now it's actually messier than before.
Yes, we are aware of this approach, thx for reminding us. It wasn't a priority so far, as we don't have anyone using the search API's just yet.
>> JS only picked up steam because Flash died. Not because it was a great language. If it were a great language people would have started optimizing it 5 years ago. It isn't. So they didn't. The new optimizations are out of necessity. And because it lets front end pretend to be backend. That may sound snobby, and it is, but JS for backend is like writing in Visual Basic. These days you can do anything in it, it will be fast, but that doesn't make it the right choice.

Very much ^this.

I never cease to be amazed by the defensive attitude and excuses coming from JavaScript developers. Usually the premise is "I can get shit done in it, so it must be good", which isn't a particularly strong argument.

If you would make up 20 completely different metrics to rank programming languages on, and score every popular language using each of them, JavaScript would be near the bottom of almost all of them, and near the top of none. It's not terrible in every way imaginable (it would score reasonably well on 'productivity' for example), but it's not great in any of them either, which frankly makes it a shit language that only exists as a historical accident.
That "feature" would be better with an explicit language construct such as *args or params args[], though. As with so many complaints about JavaScript, it's the default behaviour that is a problem.
> Have you considered porting Ruby directly to JavaScript?

No. It's been attempted before, and it doesn't turn out to be terribly useful in the end, because of the vast semantic mismatch between the two languages. See: https://github.com/jashkenas/coffee-script/wiki/List-of-lang...

> I've never gotten over the usage of "->" or "=>" to signify a function.

Give it a try, perhaps. It's critical not to use "def" and "do" when your functions are first-class values that can be passed as arguments, or assigned to variables. It's for this reason that Ruby 1.9 has a new lambda syntax that looks a great deal similar to CoffeeScript's. For example:

request(url, def callback(response) do
...
end)

... that kinda thing is no good.

The reason it's an arrow is because in any decent function, the input determines the output, eg. input points to output. And therefore, the CoffeeScript syntax: (input) -> output
AngularJS explicitly [1] states that its suited best for standard CRUD apps. If you need to do something which requires touching the DOM or some low level manipulation, better stay off it. We decided against it while building our GUI Editor ( adpushup.com), and decided on Backbone (w/ Backbone relational). Backbone is a library (as opposed to being a framework) and plays really nice with jQuery and vanilla JS.

However, there'll be projects/components for which AngularJS (or EmberJS) would be better suited, and we'll surely love to give it a try.

[1] : http://docs.angularjs.org/guide/overview
> If someone can't be bothered to send you an e-mail or call, you might want to reconsider how close those people are to you.

Indeed, it would be very neat if the world worked that way. Unfortunately, I have, and they are, and they don't use email.

I was on facebook for ~2 years, was off for five, and have been back on for about a month. The frequency and quality of communication with almost everyone I care about and don't see often (I moved continents from where I grew up) has increased dramatically.
TypeScript & Dart are offering optional typing. ASM.js is seeing big performance gains through utilizing the numeric types, and avoiding the GC monster.
> this looks like a really broken implementation over weak typing

No dammit, javascript does not coerce numbers to strings when comparing them, a "weak typing" implementation would behave exactly as he wants.

> What OP was probably annoyed by was the typical excuse the JS community offers for this behaviour: "it's weakly-typed so you can treat the arguments as anything you want".

That makes OP fractally wrong instead of merely broadly wrong.

> avoiding the verbosity typical of strongly-typed languages (where you have to specify the comparison function with the correct type signature)

Which you don't, not every language is Java and some actually have defaults. Which work. In fact, even in Java bloody java you don't have to provide a comparator to sort a list, as long as the list's items implement Comparable (that is, they can be compared to one another)
You could have skipped the Benchmarks, the official Documentatcion already said that you should not use internal getters/setters because of the bad performance.
http://developer.android.com/training/articles/perf-tips.htm...
Bertlmann's Socks and the Nature of Reality
This could be a huge win for Motorola. Say they control/patent the shell and the communications interface. It's easy and cheap to build. They charge $99 for it with great margins. All this while module builders compete both for price and features.

Since this is open, the winner in this market will be the company who can build the best ecosystem. Who can do that better than Google?

And it would be almost impossible for Samsung to compete, since they are a highly integrated company.

The interesting reaction would be from apple: they are highly integrated so hard to move to this model but they also know how to build ecosystems.

If Google builds something compelling, I'm grabbing my popcorn.
Alimay Sports - a great website for bike parts online at great prices
My cousin had this issue on her iPhone 4S and Apple replaced it with a new one when she took it to the store. It seemed like a very straightforward exchange for her.
> Have you considered porting Ruby directly to JavaScript?

It's been done. Check out Opal. I can't say I miss Ruby's ends in CS.
Whatsapp runs on tablets without a SIM card. After sms verification fails, whatsapp calls your number and provides a verification code. There is sometimes an issue with play store not allowing you to install whatsapp, but that is easily fixed by downloading the apk fron the official website.
Perhaps. But consider the amount of Marketing dollars behind .com and your country's tld. Add to this multi-billion dollar businesses (Amazon, Google, Ebay etc) using existing tld's and one should question what impact new tld's will make. (Especially if you plan to invest in them)
Doesn't work for me in FF 24.0, Windows XP :-(

Should I enable something in about:config or something else ?
And why use a RNG, when you can just return 3? http://xkcd.com/221/

The reason to use accessors is encapsulation. If the public field is private to your package/application then by all means access it directly, but if you are exposing it publicly then expect your application to be broken by third parties.

By providing accessors, you are communicating to a developer a strict mechanism for interacting with your library/application.

What if myString (in your example) needed to have bounds or be formatted in a specific way (validation)? What if it does in the future?

Without strict application flow control enforced by accessors (i.e. allowing your objects fields to be hijacked at any time, from anywhere), you cannot be sure that your application will be consistent.
> Not having a facebook account means that you are sabotaging your own communications effectiveness

Maybe if your social group consists of teenage girls, but who uses Facebook for serious communication these days? What I see from my newsfeed is a mixture of a photo repository, a phone book, and a "I'm passing through town are you available" bit. I don't recall having ever been hindered seriously by having a deactivated account.

EDIT: I should also note that this wasn't true 4-6 years ago, but I was also still in school.
So, calling a "getter" method is slower (x1.5 to x2) than directly accessing a private field. Nothing new here: everyone with a fair understanding of how computers work should know that calling a [virtual] function is a more complex operation than accessing a field, hence it takes more time to complete. It's actually reassuring to know that it's only x1.5 to x2 slower, so thanks to the OP for figuring that.

However that still doesn't make it a valid argument to discard accessors entirely. Getters and setters play an important role in a critical principle of OOP, which is object encapsulation. They form the boundary between and object contract (or interface) and its implementation.

Every time you write code that directly accesses an object's field, you introduce a new dependency to how this object was implemented - and this is bad, because you should always depend on what it does, not how it does it.

And this is also true for plain "data objects" : they are objects, they provide data. You need to know what data they can provide; you shouldn't care about how they provide it. Leave that to the guy who write these objects' classes - and if it was you, learn to be schizophrenic.

Dependency to implementation just make maintenance operations harder, which IMHO is a lot more evil than losing a bit of performance. It's a trade-off I can accept easily, especially since computers and devices still get more powerful and most applications just don't require that much power to run smoothly - and if it does, you should optimize your code structure and algorithms instead of looking for micro-optimizations like that.
While the benchmark shows that there is a measurable difference between using getters/setters and NOT using them. I have doubts this would make a great deal of difference in application level code. The performance bottlenecks are most likely going to be IO or calls, or if the app is CPU bound, actual calculation code.

I'd be willing to bet the percentage of time spent in getters and setters on the call stack is pretty insignificant.
I'm not too familiar with web development, so please forgive my question: Is this just a style sheet that the browser knows how to apply, or am I giving you read access to my e-mail?
I like it. Fighting the urge to write a parser for it in my language of choice.
The arrow is standard mathematical notation for function definition
In that case: Can you name me every county in South East England? :)
It certainly could, and particularly so if you come from a Lisp background.

But it also connects to a larger universe of Clojure libraries and practices, and a vast history of Lisp tradition — most probably for the best. In that sense, it might be more of a maximalist approach than what I'm looking for. (And (of course) readability is in the eye of the beholder ;)
Damn, I should've known it was too good to be true. I did wonder though how come a corporation hadn't invented it yet though.
Even I who seldom use JavaScript was able to see that the title post isn't written by somebody who actually knows the subject he's writing about. I knew some of masklinn's points but not all. Thanks masklinn.
The fact that it isn't in the Play store is the problem, not the fact that it's not on my individual tablet.

Sideloading never "easily fix[es]" anything that needs to happen on hundreds of millions of mobile devices owned largely by nontechnical users.

Network effect, remember?
I'm not saying you're wrong, but please don't be so casual with this audience's time.

For example, should we have to do vigilante investigation of every company everywhere?

Obviously consumer rights have to be balanced with the first amendment - and for this reason, I don't think your parent's proposal is clear enough to become a law. It's super-vague.

But don't for a second be so generous in saying that we should take the burden on instead.

I don't want to have to read about underage workers, credit card fraud by companies, carcinogenic additives, gross marketing misrepresentation, or any number of other practices that are simply illegal. Moreover even if someone did want to read about them here, we couldn't police the world's 125M companies.

This is totally literally what laws are for.
>If someone can't be bothered to send you an e-mail or call, you might want
to reconsider how close those people are to you.

My relationship with my family is completely orthogonal to their choice of platform.
Date API (old, not the new one that is arriving) was taken from Java. And Date library in Java is frankly... horrible.
There's a post by Robin Hanson ("http://hanson.gmu.edu/econofsf.html") that discusses this issue with more references on the topic (including the Krugman article).
> CoffeeScript gets this right, many others don't.

I'm not sure what you mean by that — as CoffeeScript's "type system" has no difference from JavaScript's.
Okay, so you're a snob.

No, I'm just an introvert. I have a few people to who I feel deeply connected to, and our exchanges are rare yet substantial. But these don't require IM or anything like that. I don't know anything about "shooting myself in the foot". I just don't have the impulses that some other people do (frankly, for me as a schizoid, people are very puzzling entities).

Also, "effectively communicate" is such wonderfully non-specific expression that I don't know what that even means.
Amen. In the market for a new garbage disposal recently, I was looking at the top-of-the-line Insinkerator Evolution Excel model until I saw a note about the delay in power-up being due to "microprocessor initialization". Microprocessor in a garbage disposal?!?
I'm Eamon Leonard, I work at Engine Yard.

We have a long history of supporting and investing in Open Source projects, especially those that can benefit our customers and the different OSS communities we participate in.

Like all companies, we have budgets for all sorts of activities, and sponsoring open source software is no exception. Also, like every other company, we review on an annual basis, where we allocate our budgets.

The decision to stop financially supporting any project is down to our assessment of what we've been able to help that project to achieve, and if there are opportunities to invest in other projects that are at a different stage in development, or if it relates to a specific customer need.

As has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread, the Engine Yard platform now supports Ruby, PHP and Node JS, and will soon be supporting Java, as well as a number of different databases.

Engine Yard has always contributed to the communities that its customers come from, and adding platform support for these languages and databases means that we need to consider open source projects in those communities as beneficiaries of our financial support.
Neuroscientists Discover New 'Mini-Neural Computer' in the Brain
Hi, basically the extension injects some CSS and JavaScript into your browser, targeting mail.google.com. It does not read or access your data.
Wow, those american-style can openers are the worst piece of engineering I have ever seen. The first time I saw one of those, it took me 15 minutes to figure out how it's operated, and I was baffled why there was a need to invent such a thing. Exemplary over-engineering.

This is a well-engineered can opener: http://www.fiskars.eu/Kitchen-Household/Products/Utensils/Ki...
I haven't any. But Lord of the Flies is nice as food for thought. Also there's a film based on the book.
People HAVE written Ruby -> Javascript compilers. Check out Opalrb, Redscript, Coldruby, Hotruby, Webruby...

The -> comes from Haskell's lambda syntax (\x -> x+1). It's a nice solution. 'Def' doesn't really work for lambdas, do does, but curly-brace blocks are nicer in Ruby if you put them everwhere {|x| x+1}... Keep in mind that Javascript is alot like Scheme in that there isn't really a difference between named and anonymous functions. You can write Scheme and Javascript pretty much the same way...
Instantly predict indian railways pnr charting status
Either they go to FB or DM over Twitter or some other "social thing", but they view email as far more cumbersome.

E-mail clients need to be reinvented. There's no real reason for e-mail operation to be cumbersome. I mean, we have such a wonderful, decentralized, asynchronous messaging protocol based on pure text; why do most (if not virtually all) client applications suck so badly?
My level of programming is really low but I've learn to code by having the need of solve things. I just started to read and practice to solve an idea I had.
Raspberry Pi External Storage Pt 1 - Step by Step Permanent HDD
This is demonstrably false

And yet you have neglected to demonstrate it. No misanthropy here thanks, you should adjust your assumptions. Perhaps we just disagree on the meaning of the word friend - I'd take it to mean someone who you know outside of FB and via other means of communication, someone who is willing to put in the minimal effort of emailing/texting/calling to contact you individually? Someone who doesn't I would consider an acquaintance at best.

If you make a decision to remain on FB and find it valuable, that's totally fine, but don't try to extend your judgement of its utility and experience of communication to everyone.
>Or, for that matter, google.com, which launched a $340B business on a website that could've been made by a 12-year-old.

... with an advanced understanding of graph theory, a research paper outlining a novel searching and ranking algorithm, a distributed cluster of servers crawling and indexing tens of millions of sites, and an inverted database of every keyword that appears on all of them. But yeah.
I think what he meant was NOT FOR PROFIT which every single one of those people you mentioned all the way back to feudalism operated under the spirit of.

It's just now all the low hanging fruit is gone and you need million dollar labs instead of an apple and a notebook.
There's similar quotes in an interview with Larry and Sergey in "Designing Interactions" by Bill Moggridge. Sergey explains (in a lot more detail than I do here) that they kept the front page simple because they didn't want to spend too much time on the front page. Only afterwards did they realise how powerful that was, and they decided to keep things off there as much as possible.
Yes, it's not incomprehensible. There's other structures like gangs. Nation-states, also capitalist firms if they sell drugs/prostitution. Not hard to see (at least by analogy) why they're inherently violent, top-down institutions.

Also, "juvenile elementary school behaviour" is something I observe all the time among programmers. At one office, I've heard people simply saying "penis" and of course jokes about mothers. It's what people do in absurd workplaces, where they're not working towards higher purposes beyond selling some crap product and making money.
Bitcoin, The Economic Singularity: From Holland with Love
No, it makes sense to sort strings when you get handed strings, and sort numbers when handed numbers. Period. Default behavior is now exactly as expected by 100% of developers.

Your creativity as a language designer should only come in to play when dealing with sets of mixed type.
> Because it's a stupid idea not to have at least basic information on wikipedia about these language.

Why? Why is it stupid? Why does Wikipedia have to cover it?

This argument could be extended to everything. My company, that I work for, why couldn't I cover that using the couple of blogs about it and our own site?

Once you make this argument the scope of Wikipedia expands dramatically (remember, it is a founding principle that Wikipedia is curated not an indiscriminate collection).

If you're arguing that the notability rules are problematic for programming languages and need to be revised, then I agree.

Simply recreating articles is not going to affect that, leading to inconsistent results and well meaning efforts to clean up content causing this sort of confrontation.

Don't just drop content over and over in the hope that it will stay, that's not a workable approach. And, yes, it is rude. Throwing out ad hominems because you didn't get your way is also not very nice. Engage in the community, bring together some solid guidelines, and then create the content that meets those guidelines.

I've given you the starting base to bring those changes about - if you want to take that and go with it then please do make the effort.

If your position is that Wikipedia should cover everything, ever, then you're at odds with the Wikipedia community and should fork it (but I'd suggest you'll soon realise why those rules exist!).
Exactly like the buyer.
There's quite a few tech companies though, some are pretty decent, but I'm afraid you won't get a high salary job as a developer soon.

Just look through all the different job boards, jobsdb, indeed.hk, wall.barcamp.hk. Maybe a good idea to contact some recruiters, they have a ton of open positions since local talents isn't that great.