Translation From PR-Speak to English of Selected Portions of Rails Developer David Heinemeier Hansson’s Response to Alex Payne’s Interview [dive into mark] →
What can you say? Following the style of Gruber, with a twist of Pilgrim. Excellent.
What can you say? Following the style of Gruber, with a twist of Pilgrim. Excellent.
This is rather cool. Actually, the agency I work for made a similar site, just in Flash, and using a cloth as the canvas.
| Vanessa Fox. Nude.
Inspired by Adam McCrea, this is metaprogramming to the limit. Very interesting, and readable.
Damn. I forgot. I had signed up and everything, and planned to edit the template, but I forgot. It’s fixed now, but I figure I’ve lost some 24 hours or so of nakedness. Too bad — at least it’s changed for next year.
Wonderful web comic. It really is rather good.
Dare Obsanjo‘s article, Brendan Eich on Mozilla and the Future of AJAX, has some interesting points, but this note won’t be commenting on those (although I may do so later on).
However, in the entry, the following snippet is found:
open_source + open_standards != user_driven_innovations;
Now, while I don’t have any trouble understanding Dare’s point, there’s just one little thing that annoys me with this approach: It doesn’t really make sense, from a programming perspective.
First of all, declaring the sum of two variables isn’t possible in any language I’ve ever heard of (think about it — what would be the value of each variable?). But more importantly, you can’t negatively declare a variable, meaning, you can’t define what it’s not. != is used in comparison only.
I see this rather often on IRC and such. The thinking seems to be that you can define what a value is, thus you can also define what it’s not. But that doesn’t make sense. It’s a smart ass way of intermingling programming with your writing, but makes you seem like you’re really not (smart, that is).
By all means, do define what things are not. Just don’t put in some hot shot mathematical formula, trying to look cool. You don’t.
(But again, this doesn’t have anything to do with the article itself — that’s a whole different story. Again, maybe more later.)
I saw a documentary some weeks ago, about David Beckham going to LA Galaxy, and what it would take for him to succeed. There was also an interview with a guy — I don’t recall his name, but I think he was a journalist — who was confident that Becks would fail, mainly due to all the problems Americans seem to have with soccer:
I think there was one more, but I don’t remember it, and what I want to do is focus on his second point: Americans like to use their hands. And then it struck me, only in America can a game where the only foot-to-ball contact is the field goals (and the rare use of the foot to kick the ball forward), be called football.
Wow. Addictive.
This is Simply Jonathan, a blog written by Jonathan Holst. It's mostly about technical topics (and mainly the Web at that), but an occasional post on clothing, sports, and general personal life topics can be found.
Jonathan Holst is a programmer, language enthusiast, sports fan, and appreciator of good design, living in Copenhagen, Denmark, Europe. He is also someone pretentious enough to call himself the 'author' of a blog. And talk about himself in the third person.