I own a DK2 and have demoed Crescent Bay several times this year and have a hard time believing this. Which demos were screen door-y to you on the CB? i.e. which specific scenes... please be specific.
I loved school because I enjoyed learning and was the top of the class. I had a compulsion to finish every test first, and have the highest score. IMO, I was born to learn, and would have succeeded in almost any type of educational system.
I always get voted down for this, but I still feel that typescript is an answer to a question that nobody is asking. (I'm also very suspect of all of the positive comments. Is HN really this pro-MS for JavaScript?) In my company, we literally have a typescript counterpart team doing the same projects. Our code is cleaner, better architected, and our team is able to consistently produce 2 to 3 times more features. In my experience, the teams that choose typescript are usually windows devs that cannot wean themselves off of visual studio due to their dependence upon auto completion and IDE tools. I'm not hating, I just don't understand why any js dev would add code to their code.
> In my experience, the teams that choose typescript are usually windows devs that cannot wean themselves off of visual studio due to their dependence upon auto completion and IDE tools.
Well, since VS does auto-completion with JavaScript too, so maybe you're not understanding the whole situation. Some people like TypeScript for its ability to facilitate creation of large projects via addition types, classes, and namespaces, while retaining much of the basic JavaScript syntax.
Yep, voted down for no reason. I have actual real world experience with teams trying to use this technology. Is there an actual MS army trying to keep these threads pro MS?
Tooling is a big boon with TypeScript: Go to Definition, Find All References, Refactor->Rename, debug your TypeScript in Visual Studio.
You're right that if you don't use the tooling, TypeScript is of lesser value. Using things like classes, lambdas, modules syntax is still there, of course, and is quite a bit nicer than JS equivalents.
Be careful with that if you use data-binding in your templates, such as Knockout.js . Visual Studio doesn't know the types of your viewmodels, so those templates are not indexed and not subject to refactoring.
Enabling rich IDE support is precisely the point of TypeScript and similar enhancements like Python 3 type annotations: Give the computer in front of you enough information to automatically do for you what you would otherwise have to do manually, freeing you up to focus on higher level problems.
And at the same time doing what Java did, abstracting away what is under the hood, so when something brakes. SOL. But this might be good, keep JS for the Pro's and TS for the Joe's?
The IDE makes TypeScript compelling, but it is useful even without the IDE. You can use the command-line compiler to check your code for errors. This is extremely useful if you have thousands of lines of code and multiple developers working on the project.
Also when will people understand that SICP is not about teaching programming language? There is no fucking point in rewriting it in your favourite language, it is 99.9% your language less suitable for it (99% it already has mutable state, assignment, loops, (pseudo-)OOP and 5 layers of historic brain damage)
Don't know scheme? But it's even better that way! Many things will faster click in your head. Like oh wtf we're writing programs in some lists. Oh and now how the fuck your interpreter can evaluate programs far more complex than itself?
Sure, but this is in Clojure. Surely that's not /that/ far away from Scheme: they're Lisp-1's with pervasive immutability. There's not such an emphasis on explicit recursion, but the loop/recur pattern is still pretty close :) (But yes, you would have to of course translate it from Scheme to Clojure, which means not doing the explicit recursion.)
Use the SICP package for Racket, when you get to the chapters with non-standard functions. For example the chapter on streams and the one about the picture language.
Why is there not some way to disrupt this industry??? It is maddening that these people even exist. How is normal to take 35% of someone's salary for 6 months because you got to them first at the right time? How is it ethical to whittle a starry eyed junior down to 30 bucks an hour so you can take 60 or 70 plus? There has to be a way simpler way to connect folks to jobs in this day and age. </rant> ...Sorry, it just gets to me every once in a while.
Years ago I made a similar rant [1]. Last year it made the rounds on HN and because of that I heard from one company [2] that seems to be trying a different approach. (I have no affiliation with them). I don't know if that model is working for them or not. I haven't stayed in touch and I haven't seen anyone else trying it.
$30 an hour is about $60,000 a year which is a pretty good starting salary. An amazing one in my part of the country where $45k is the average just-out-school salary.
And all the recruiters I've dealt with are paid a flat fee by the hiring company, they don't take a percentage of pay. Then again I've never worked directly for a recruiting agency, either.
I definitely understand the sentiment in this comment, but if 60k annual is a good salary, think about 120k annually for just being a parasitic worm recruiter. Most folks at that "30 buck" rate have no idea that the employers would pay then much higher directly, and merely assume that the recruiter just took a flat fee. When it's understood that the recruiter took a percentage of the income, and that said percentage equates to double what the employee is actually getting paid... that's when the hatred starts.
I don't see how comparing the salary of developers and recruiters is any more meaningful than comparing the salary of college professors and plumbers or the Weis stock boy and a junior VC associate.
If someone has been getting offers and interviews for $60k positions and a recruiter can get them an $80k position, what does it matter to the developer if the recruiter gets $20, $40 or even $80k on top of that? I think with the right incentives recruiting can help everyone involved. The problem is when the incentives aren't aligned. If a company is giving Recruiter A $100k to find a developer no matter what, A's incentive is to push the developer's salary as low as possible. If Recruiter B gets a lump sum of 50% of the first year salary, B is going to fight for an extra few thousand dollars on my bottom line.
I'm on the opposite side of the country so it's very possible the recruiters in the Valley are leeches like they appear to be based on the general consensus on HN. My experience with them has been varied, from the former classmate with a degree in Fine Art suddenly trying to learn the difference between Java and JavaScript to someone who actually knows what they're talking about.
I agree completely... this is even worse in countries where it's quite uncommon for companies to hire independent contractors.
Here in Spain there are a lot of companies (known among engineers as "cárnicas", meat factories) that recruit people as own employees when they see an opening for contract work in a company, ship them directly to the contracting company for short terms proyects, and dumping them uncereimoniously when the contract ends.
They pocket a generous hourly rate, paying the contractor a standard rate monthly salary.
A large part of job offers publicly available here are of this kind...
shrug I'm a starry eyed junior whittled to 30 bucks an hour, but I had better offers on the table that didn't come from recruitment firms.
I don't feel particularly screwed because I'm going to be getting raises over time, especially if I decide to hop out of my first job at year 3 or 4.
55-60k really isn't a bad place to be in many locations. I can't imagine it in some of the traditional startup places like the SF Bay area, Boston, or Seattle area though.
