Brilliant writing. However I can't help but imagine that had he lived a more risky and foolish life he would have come up with a different set of regrets and wishes. Although that could just be me living in "the hypothetical alternative past" and not "the now".
I haven't been keeping up with jQuery for awhile, but I look forward to the updates. Site could be toned down a bit, as I find the horns to be a bit distracting, but other than that, all I really care about are the 14 updates.
I am surprised that so many other people share your sentiment. While I understand everybody loves to be a critic, is it really that bad? To me, the layout of the site was actually somewhat intuitive, and there was only 1 possible place content could be... right in the middle of the page below all the welcoming stuff. It's just like all the other run-of-the-mill blog-like sites... welcoming stuff and main links at the top, content below that, and useless stuff like ads and twitter on the left and/or right.
Maybe I'm being obtuse, but why not? The radius and tooth count appear to be the same on all four, and the directions of rotation match if each turns opposite the two it touches.
Because the gear movement vectors add up to a vector equal to the applied force, but opposite in direction :-D Remember, the magnitude and direction of a vector are the sum of the magnitudes and directions of the vector components. If you applied a given force to any of the gears, in any direction, you could tabulate the resulting forces and directions and add them up. What you will have then, for the image, is a four quantities of equal magnitude but where the odd numbered quantities have opposite sign than the even number quantities. Classic parallelogram.
Say, you applied a force to the green gear to move it clockwise, let's call it +N (for positive force of magnitude N; we chose +ve to mean clockwise.) All four gears are of equal size, so they have identical torques; they will all move by the same speed. Taking friction as negligible, we can expect any gear to produce a force of the same magnitude as that applied to it, but with opposite direction.
So back to the green gear, when we apply a clock wise force of magnitude N, it gives us back a counter clockwise for of N, which acts of the yellow gear (or the red one, if we choose to.) Yellow one is acted upon by +N, and it in turn gives us -N back (a counter clockwise one.) Feed that to the blue one and you get +N, which acts on red to give us -N.
Now, a force of -N is exerted by red upon green; BUT! we are applying a force of +N to green! What's going on?
If you apply clockwise force of magnitude N to green gear, you would be applying +N. Which would apply -N to yellow (not +N as you stated), +N to blue, -N to red, and +N to green again, thus rotating the gears. You obviously have a better understanding of this than I do, but you must be explaining some part of this equation incorrectly.
Very cool idea and concept. However, I'm not convinced of the utility of rating a movie compared to it's trailer. If the movie has a shitty trailer, but is actually an OK movie, it will get high ratings. If it has a great trailer, and is a great movie, it will get average ratings. Why should I care about the "quality of trailer" to "quality of movie" ratio? What's the advantage over a rotten tomatoes rating, for example?
What I think stands out the most is the super easy access to the trailers. I would come to your site just to see what movies are coming out and watch the trailers. The other sites that offer trailers, at the moment, are barely worth going to because of how much spam they have everywhere.
As far as my first impression: I was confused at first, until I saw the top tagline. The google text ads at the top were very disorienting. It looks like navigation, and immediately causes me to question the legitimacy of the website. I basically ignored the slideshow thing, I'm not sure why.
Scrolling down I notice names of movies coming out. Ok, and so what? Further down I see ratings. Ok, I get it. I think you should put popular movies with ratings first. (Perhaps take the top 10 grossing movies, and only use those that are at least a week old... odds are everyone has heard of these) Just seeing a movie name with a screenshot was confusing at first.
When I watched a trailer I was pleased at the trailer quality and speed at which it started. Now, where do I vote? I have no idea. I can become a fan or follow you on Twitter, but where the hell do I vote? Do I have to sign up? There's no login anywhere... Eventually, after two or three trailers, I read that text that said I need to login with FB or Twitter to vote. You should make that text stand out, for sure. I just assumed that it was the standard "share on Facebook and Twitter" thing that I see elsewhere.
Finally, were I to commit to your site and actually want to browse around (which I have), I would expect more content and more means to sort it. What are the highest/lowest/most voted movies? That definitely needs to be there.
That's all for now... sorry about the disorganization in my post. Best of luck.
A lot of great points, thanks. I removed all the text ads, so it's just display ads now. And on the movie pages, I enlarged the "log in to vote" text and cleared it up.
A bunch of your organizational points are good ones, and I'll probably be changing the structure of the site as time goes by. Thanks for the guidance.
Honestly, what did you expect? The link was called "Traits in PHP." The article described the initial constraint as being "stuck in PHP." This wasn't an article arguing that it's a good idea to do it, but more of an exercise.
So your questions, does PHP really need all the added complexity of this?
That doesn't matter. If you don't need it, don't use it.
Does it really help solve the problem, or did you just add a new maintenance nightmare?
This question is a false dichotomy. First, it wasn't trying to solve any other problem then getting traits to work. So yeah, it solved that problem. Second, new code always adds new maintenance concerns. Whether or not it's a nightmare depends on the quality of code, which seems to be above par in this case.
As Nycto pointed out in this thread, there is a "Traits" patch which seems preferable to this code. It's likely that OP didn't realize it existed and did reinvent the wheel. But still, in terms of an exercise in PHP, I found it quite cool.
