Also think of your target audience. All of them can program in JavaScript more or less, not all of them will want to learn Perl to do something they can do without learning a new language.
I'm fairly disappointed with this release. My read through of a tutorial in it went something like this:
* Oh you're sticking with that confusing % for hashes, @ for arrays then $ for everything else... maybe maybe classes have been sorted out though.
* Hmm, why is the syntax for defining a class totally different to defining functions and variables everywhere else
* Well they can't have made anything WORSE. Oh fields can have minuses in them?? Packages exist and you can define them but you're not supposed to anymore?
* Well at least you can't totally rewrite the language in some arcane way which means every bit of perl you come across is totally different and unreadable for 45min while you work out what the custom DSL does. looks at phasers, Meta operators, fix'es sigh
Great that this has finally been released, but it really doesn't solve the problems that Perl always had that it is TOO expressive and too customisable, meaning it'll always be vastly different project to project. On top of that it doesn't have the things that people are really excited about now, which is channels, selects and other things that make async easy. I think that this would have been an amazing release when Ruby was getting popular, but I think it's a few years too late.
Yeah I can tell you've now learnt enough of the language to judge it at all... Or perhaps not at all! http://docs.perl6.org/type/Channel Though supplies with react/whenever is a lot more exciting than channels.
> Oh you're sticking with that confusing % for hashes, @ for arrays then $ for everything else...
The claim is something like:
Some folk like distinguishing singular ($foo) and plural (%dict, @array) nouns even if some others dislike it.
Many human languages make the same sorts of distinctions to good effect which may give you pause for thought, especially given recent neuroscience emphasizing the apparent central role of natural language processing rather than math processing when folk comprehend code (the study I saw involved Java code fwiw).
Note that you can bind a name to avoid sigils:
my \foo = %; # bind foo to an empty dict
foo = :bar, :baz # foo now has two key/val pairs
> why is the syntax for defining a class totally different to defining functions and variables everywhere else
The claim is something like:
Perl / Perl 6 are more serious than most other langs about variable scoping. Classes aren't closures and object lifetimes are different from lexical variables'.
> Oh fields can have minuses in them??
The claim is something like:
Many folk love that, eg lispers, and Perl isn't about telling experienced coders that they can not do things they consider elegant or useful.
> Packages exist and you can define them but you're not supposed to anymore?
The claim is something like:
You generally don't need to use the 'package' keyword because keywords like 'class' and 'module' are themselves variants on 'package' and do the necessary work of the 'package' keyword for you.
Perhaps you've read some doc that was written by someone who was learning Perl 6 and for whom English is a second language such as the learnXinY?
> Well at least you can't totally rewrite the language in some arcane way which means every bit of perl you come across is totally different and unreadable for 45min while you work out what the custom DSL does. looks at phasers, Meta operators, fix'es sigh
The claim is something like:
Perl 6 is a granularly malleable language. The features for empowering users to use this have been carefully designed to be sane but they can be abused.
> On top of that it doesn't have the things that people are really excited about now, which is ... things that make async easy.
The claim is something like:
Perl 6 has the things that people are really excited about now, including things that make async easy.
Perl 6 includes sweet concurrency, parallel, and async constructs.
I think you've read poor material or misinterpreted it.
> I think that this would have been an amazing release when Ruby was getting popular, but I think it's a few years too late.
Manual testing is basically a 0 skill job. Can you click around this website and tell me when you see a bug. This is the most common form of QA but adds very little value that can't be added with more reliability using automation.
Given this QA can still bring value. The two roles that they really add value in are a Test developer specialist writing non-flaky automated tests, and a BA type role where they have conversations that expand a product owner's idea into an implementable feature.
Given that neither of these roles require manual testing, if a QA team has over specialised on manual testing, there's little value in keeping it.
I might be biased ( ex-dev with 20 years experience from Assembler to C to .Net etc ) but GOOD manual testing requires a lot of skill. If it didn't then I wouldn't have switched from dev to test. I work in a shop where they had devs doing all the testing, tons of automation but they still found that a good exploratory tester added value. But from your comment it may well be that you've never worked with someone like me - maybe when you do you'll think different
I think a lot depends on specific definitions: a manual test suite, where you have a list of tests with clear steps and a clear expectation, is definitely near-zero skill to execute. Actual exploratory testing, on the other hand, is skilled: especially if they're expected to write up tests (automated or not) that test code paths that haven't previously been tested.
So I develop PHP. The reason I don't use Debian stable is because the latest version of PHP on there is 5.4.41, which is behind the "old stable version". That means security fixes only.
No bug fixes that resolve problems, or modern functionality (that release is over a year old), and will be EOLd in 1 month. That means a big delta of change that will be needed to handled when debian finally does get round to upgrading. Large deltas of change mean lots of risk.
It's much better to stay further up the crest of the wave and handle more regular updates, to minimise the size of the risk I'm bringing into my code at each release, than it is to stick to an old version and not handle the stream of new functionality that's coming in as it arrives.
Why should the author try to fulfill some sort of gender-quota? The purpose of the article is clearly to collate the top 10 single-founder startups, rather than the top 5 male and top 5 female single-founder startups, etc.
Not sure I'd call it a "tech" startup, but it definitely counts as a startup and a successful one. Apologies to #2 if I'm wrong about it being sole founder. I'd say it's more successful than some of the revenue-free entries on this list.
This is an excellent question. There are plenty of tech companies which happen to have been founded by one woman. Why not include some? I suspect this wasn't a deliberate oversight by the author, but it does illustrate the benefit of having an editor or some other feedback before clicking Publish.
If that's what you want to call it. I always thought of burnout as not being able or not having the desire to continue keeping up the professional pace that you've been keeping over a long period of time. It doesn't have to include any irrational element, or even explode into a cathartic moment to be burnout as far as I've heard it discussed.
'Succumbing to burnout' I get - 'having a burnout' is not a phrasing that I'm even familiar with.
This happened to me. It was related to work stuff, but also there were some things that made it worse (I'm transgender, and I hadn't started my transition at the time).
* It got so bad that twice I day I'd think I was having a heart attack.
* I wasn't sleeping (like not even a little bit) (I watched like all of Colombo during this time)
* Couldn't walk home without freaking out all the time (that person is staring at me, do they hate me, I don't even know them, are they following me, etc)
In the end I quit my job, and moved town, so I was lots closer to friends. This got me about half way to being normal. Later started my transition, which got rid of /so/ many issues, and got me more or less the rest of the way.
Looking back I wonder how I managed to live with my mind being that messed up.
A lot of people recommend getting medical help. However, just a warning, GPs (in the UK at least) aren't all brilliant with mental health. I got medical help for what I thought was heart attacks, and while my GP suggested it may be stress, they never recommended a therapist. (I have since been told that if you ask, you will get one though, I didn't really know to ask.)
The reason I wanted to post was to point out how it can creep up on you. I certainly didn't notice becoming more and more stressed out, I felt normal. It just felt like life was harder.
So watch out for the things you read in these posts, and be sure know that this can happen to you too.
Whenever you read, watch and listen to content you want to support, you simply flattr it. Remember that you can flattr as many times you want during a month, as you never will exceed your chosen budget.
At the end of each month, we divide your budget into as many pieces as you made flattrs. For example 25 flattrs will divide your budget into 25 pieces. With a 10 euro budget, each piece is 40 cents.
You know that moment when internally you're smacking your forehead and making an O shape with your mouth. Now how come I didn't think of that idea? So simple. I hope it takes off.
I _hate_ ads, I hate them online, I hate them offline. I think they're a form of pollution. I'm with Bill Hicks on this one, people who work in advertising or marketing trying to figure out how to get people to buy crap they don't want need to take a serious look at themselves ( except Bill was a bit more blunt: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDW_Hj2K0wo )
I often wonder if maybe some city somewhere will issue a blanket ban on advertising in public spaces to enhance the city-scape and draw in tourists. I know I'd visit. How wonderful to be able to look around and not have some corporation hijack your view and try to sell you something.
Just watched Hicks. I think the problem with ads is the process is corrupted rather than that it exists at all. You have a great business with great service but no one knows about it, it makes things better to let people know. The trouble is the ad space goes to those who pay most who tend to be those who overcharge for crappy stuff. Not sure what the solution to that is.
I am pleased to see this as I had been tossing around a similar idea as a first-line alternative method of moderation, where commentary/open collaboration would be restricted to those with skin in the game, so to speak, and more or less without concern for the degree of skin in play.
As far as distribution, is it correct that enrolled partners who host/integrate see a flat 5 percent, the flattr service gets 5, and "creators" see the remainder of 90 percent from a things share of committed flattrs?
