By declaring right out that it is no longer going to be supported, people will be encouraged to write for the newer databases. Eventually when the standard MySQL version moves up, it won't be stuck in 4.1. Plugins authors will also appreciate that they have been given enough heads-up to update their plugins.
This will also give people time to upgrade their databases if they're managing their own.
When you maximise a window, it takes up the entire screen. In the case of multiple monitors, it takes up the entire screen of the current monitor it is currently displayed in. Multiple monitors are therefore a hardware method of window management without having to manually resize them.
In Windows 7 you can now dock windows to the left or right. This has worked really well for me on a single 24'' at 1900x1200 resolution. In the past this was not possible out of the box.
Agree. Slashes typically mean a directory separator but they're really a character like any other. Having separate pages at /foo and /foo/ is completely legitimate.
Sometimes it seems like we're desperate for innovation. Someone remind me why are we tampering with how the urls are displayed. Is there some major benefit I'm missing out on and why is this type of thing "news"?
Someone remind me why are we tampering with how the urls are displayed. Is there some major benefit I'm missing out on and why is this type of thing "news"?
1) Normal users do not understand URLs, at all.
2) It is in Google's direct financial interest to extend overwhelming control of navigation on the Internet into complete domination, by discouraging navigation by end users and teaching them that the right way to navigate is to use AOL Keywords 2.0 at their friendly local multinational advertising company.
Why would Firefox do this? I don't know. Maybe they have Chrome envy.
Want a conspiracy theory? Firefox receives essentially 100% of their funding -- to the tune of over a hundred million bucks -- from Google kicking back advertising revenue in return for being the default search engine in FF. If a for-profit corporation made a decision in the interests of their sole client whose happiness was worth 9 figures a year, what would you conclude about the motivation for that decision?
I think it's pretty much just the first reason you list. Firefox has been trying to move in this direction since the introduction of the horribly named AwesomeBar, which was intended to be a DWIM button for Web navigation.
The conspiracy theory doesn't really hold up, since as far as I can tell, pleasing Google doesn't affect Mozilla's bottom line either way. The value of Google's happiness to Mozilla is substantially less than $9 million per year. The important metric isn't happiness — it's the binary "Have we avoided pissing Google off so badly that they're willing call off the deal and give up all those Firefox ad clicks to Bing?"
To go beyond the call of duty and actually try to make Google happy by making Firefox worse would be a stupid move — it would only weaken Mozilla's bargaining position with Google.
Not at all. One's a document and the other is an index list unless the list is replaced by a default document.
Also, leaving off the slash to an index will usually cause the web server to do a redirect to to corrected URL with a slash, causing your user extra latency and your server extra hits.
... they're only dropping the trailing slash if it corresponds to the root path. i.e. "www.google.com/" will become "www.google.com", but "www.google.com/webmasters/" will be untouched.
Technically, (my interpretation is that) it abstracts your application from your db. The ORM acquires the data, allowing your application code to concentrate on using the data.
I agree with rimantas. Views and Stored Procedures should not be used to perform business logic stuff i.e. I should not have to create a view with massive joins just because a logic need requires it. And I should not have to dive into my database when a business rule changes!!! Views and Stored Procedures are useful when you lack a layer of abstraction (e.g. An MS Access FrontEnd) where you may want to put security restrictions on the data that is exposed to a particular group of users, OR for performance reasons where a reasonably complex query can be run faster as a stored procedure. Of course this is my personal view, and is definitely a point of contention for many people.
The whole point of an ORM is to abstract the data from application code. Business Logic can be built on top of it with minimal knowledge of the underlying data storage system except in exceptional cases. ORM frameworks aim to simplify the process of writing these boilerplate code and continue to fulfil most common use cases.
For a second I thought you made a site where people could contribute their ideas and try to gain public support. At which point I would have just pointed at Kickstarter.
Interpreted pedantically, removing ORM techniques means dealing directly with resultsets or loosly typed structures. This is definitely what I DO NOT want in any of my views. If you're working with an OO language like C#.NET or Java, good luck!
Any abstraction on any level is going to add a performance hit no matter what.
If this was really an issue, wrap your ORM Framework stuff (differentiating from ORM the pattern) in a DAL layer so that your BLL does not worry about the existence of the ORM. Then as you scale, optimise your DAL with either inbuilt optimisations or when desperate write your own SQL (if you don't even know SQL then you're a poor excuse of a developer)
Think of them as like Ikea furniture - they don't look great, and they don't often fit in every household if they have complex requirements. But they're highly modular, and easy to assemble. So when you need something in a jiffy, just bring it home, fix it up and it'll perform its purpose. When it no longer fits the purpose, get something else. And every household has to just start somewhere.
If it is such a great idea, chances are other people have already thought about it. To assume that you are the only person to have thought about something is just selfish and egotistical. Noone should have a monopoly on ideas.
If you were the only one with that idea, I'd say 80% of the time, it wasn't such a good idea in the first place.
If someone thought your idea was worth stealing, then I'd say that you should feel confident that your idea is a good one, steam ahead and speed to market.
But it's a different story when they use your own words to describe the concept of it. It was practically my pitch describing their website.
Few people come up with the same ideas using the same words. That's just not likely. Conceptualizing is not easy. There are a lot of different ways to describe Twitter and Quora. People describe things differently. I don't think it was random.
A lot can be done post-launch to differentiate, though. They might have a headstart, but you probably have more of the vision lurking in the wings, beyond whatever you've pitched to people.
By declaring right out that it is no longer going to be supported, people will be encouraged to write for the newer databases. Eventually when the standard MySQL version moves up, it won't be stuck in 4.1. Plugins authors will also appreciate that they have been given enough heads-up to update their plugins.
This will also give people time to upgrade their databases if they're managing their own.