AnneOminous

7 ms·

1.
by AnneOminous 10y ago
1) The use-cases in which not all JavaScript or CSS is (or should be) loaded up front. There are many such. You should be able to think of several just off-hand. I can. 2) "Basecamp isn't a trivial one page app; it has over 200+ s
2.
by AnneOminous 10y ago
RSpec is not a "backfire" of Rails. It's a generalized Ruby TDD tool which has very little to do with Rails per se. The suggestion that RSpec was created to cover some failure of Rails strikes me as exceedingly strange.
3.
by AnneOminous 10y ago
Static typing is not a single issue. It is several. From a high-level-language standpoint, static typing is a crutch. It isn't necessary, but it forces you to do things "the right way"... according to some definitions of the
4.
by AnneOminous 10y ago
Same here. AFAIAC, the default Rails setup has been leaning more and more toward a Basecamp-specific kind of use case, rather than the generalized tool it started out to be. Turbolinks messes A LOT with conventional design. Unless you reall
5.
by AnneOminous 10y ago
Turbolinks is great for some use-cases (like Basecamp for example). But it is not for everybody. It absolutely sucks for other use-cases. Among other things, since its inception it has messed with the CSS heirarchy, resulting in the fact th
6.
by AnneOminous 13y ago
But if you have a beef with how much of the domain logic is in the Model, don't blame Rails, blame MVC. I mean, come on. Either you want to use MVC or you want to go in a different direction. Fine. But don't blame Rails for being
7.
by AnneOminous 13y ago
But this isn't a failure of "DHH/Rails" philosphy, it's inherent in the MVC paradigm. If we're going to "blame" something, we should be a bit more careful about where that blame actually lies. The dis
8.
by AnneOminous 13y ago
No, you're still not getting it. The VALUE is not indirect (i.e., extrinsic). The METHOD OF MEASUREMENT is indirect. Those are two different things. One does not imply the other. If I measure the "worth" of your automobile in
9.
by AnneOminous 13y ago
But you CAN trade Bitcoins for things, not just currency. You can trade Bitcoins directly for more hardware to mine Bitcoins. So it IS a reversible transaction, and Bitcoins are DIRECTLY (not indirectly) valued at approximately the cost
10.
by AnneOminous 13y ago
The exhaust from your Chevy also doesn't have the "intrinsic worth" of the oil that it ultimately came from, either. Nor does the electricity from my solar cells have the "intrinsic worth" of the silicon they were m
11.
by AnneOminous 13y ago
No, it isn't. "Intrinsic" means "belonging to a thing by its very nature." The "value" here isn't "indirect". Only the method of measurement. This is economics, not quantum physics. The meth
12.
by AnneOminous 13y ago
Quote: "...but since mining isn't inherently reversible its not an intrinsic value." It IS "value", because the resources used for mining have measurable value, and can be traded for things other than Bitcoins. It m
13.
by AnneOminous 13y ago
This isn't a failure of Bitcoin. It's a failure of the market. Bitcoin has an approximate "intrinsic value", which in economic terms is a bit above the cost of mining. Current market price has been very far from that. Bi