Change is.
Change is good. Change is a sign of life. Change that moves you towards your goal is a Good Thing™.
Two Foos Walked into a Bar...
Software and Web developer. Tamer of deadlines. Enchanter of stakeholders.
Change is good. Change is a sign of life. Change that moves you towards your goal is a Good Thing™.
I keep running across questions on various lists along the lines of “why is agile better than waterfall, besides it not being waterfall?” The answer to that bit me once again over the weekend: agility is better because, done reasonably well, it responds to change far better (by any standard) than waterfall does.
Reposted from muslimwomenwearclothestoo:
Like a lot of people, I’m really excited by the promise of Docker. A reproducible, reliable environment that banishes “it works on my machine” from any team’s vocabulary? What’s not to like?
I routinely have open at least one of two Git GUI interfaces; GitHub for Mac (aka GH:Mac) and [Atlassian SourceTree]http://www.sourcetreeapp.com). They each have their uses; GitHub for Mac is drop-dead simple, deliberately eschewing the level of detailed features of SourceTree. (For example, I don’t think it’s possible to cherry-pick commits using GH:Mac; in SourceTree, it’s very straightforward.)
(But it tries, at least on first appearances.)
If Linus’s Law means anything, having a monocultural, uniformly male team is playing Russian roulette with several bullets more than necessary. (Which has been formally proven.)
My world is that of startups. I’ve been working at early stage companies or starting them for almost fifteen years now. So my worldview is a bit colored by the needs of startups, but I submit that these needs translate to those of any organization faced with the challenge of delivering a…
We’re up on Jekyll! I believe the appropriate technical term at this point is
Woohoo!!!
Plan #74,169 for Improved Productivity in Communication is underway. Watch this space!
There’s something about a community culture that, more often than not, treats a lack of tests as a defect in itself, compared to one that’s been ravaged by “Have a WEBSITE for $10”- and “Learn X in 21 Seconds”-level stupidity.
This just earned a place high atop my “Tools to Evaluate” list; largely due to the overall description in the main project README, and utterly cemented by this bit in the Lotus::View README:
It’s based on a separation between views and templates.
A view is an object that encapsulates the presentation logic of a page. A template is a file that defines the semantic and visual elements of a page. In order to show a result to an user, a template must be rendered by a view.
No more inscrutable magic in Rails view handling! Thank you!
If you have something like
…thinking some people might wonder if I’m nibbling on the punctuation.
Rails is a fantastic solution to a well-understood class of problem: the CRUD-oriented (or REST-oriented) query/report/update Web application, circa 2004-2006. Its philosophy of curation over configuration, despite having been likened to the report-producing languages of old (such as IBM RPG II, means that you really only have two things to worry about: your domain business logic and page transitions (which is another way of saying “your domain business logic, as it applies to presentation”).