I love (and paid for!) Sublime Text, however I’m afraid that it will follow the path of previous closed source solutions. To me this means getting massive amounts of features that no one wants, or worse being abandoned (see TextMate). The only way to combat both of these is to open the source fully and let the community nurture and grow the platform.

For these reasons I’m very happy that Github decided to open source Atom. It means that if I choose to start using it I can be comfortable in the knowledge that I can continue to use it in the future, even if Github stops developing it. The big question is whether it will get enough traction and polish to replace ST for my code slinging ways. :)

The notion of this article actually resonates with my thoughts when I played ET for the first time a few months ago. I thought that it is not even half as bad as I imagined it after everything I read about it.

My personal experience corroborates this research; I tend to come up with ideas/solutions to problems while walking the dog or mowing the grass. Then again I also do a lot of good thinking in the shower. So, perhaps its not just walking but rather not sitting that enhances the idea flows. :)

I love the idea that Tenderlove merged it into master live on stage. :)

Seriously, I can’t wait to get this in my production code. It seems like a no-brainer to speed up my queries.

While I like the concept and love the fact that its hosted on Github, it’s striking how big a role “design” plays in a sites attractiveness. Gogs looks vaguely like Github.com but has much less usablity; the font choice alone is enough to make me not want to use it. It just reinforces in my mind how valuable a designer can be.

I agree that adding this type of complexity is wrong in a security context. However, what type of impact with this have on LibreSSL? Will this restrict adoption of a more secure framework? Will Government groups just throw up their hands and go back to OpenSSL? Will open source be banned from .mil networks because it no longer fully conforms to regulations?

I think Mozilla’s NSS is FIPS compliant so that is one option for software creators. What are the downsides to using NSS instead of LibreSSL? If NSS is a viable platform, why not just put the LibreSSL effort into helping the NSS project?

This is cool, but is Acid2 really valid anymore? In fact are any of the Acid tests really used anymore?

Speaking as someone who bills and performs as a “Full-stack” developer who tends to end up doing a lot of Devops, there is some truth, and some falsehood to this article. I can’t give scientific data, but in my experience I will say I wear a lot of hats – I work in a team making the slow transition from a waterfall-style to agile methods, so I end up being the de facto agile coach. We’re making a transition to using Ruby, replacing Java. As the guy with the Ruby experience, I’m the de facto (and to some extent de jure) Ruby coach. I’m the liason to the IT/Ops department, and a primary mover in the ‘script all the things’ department. It’s true, I don’t get to do anything for a long time, I would say that I’m a jack-of-all-trades, and though I would say I’m not a master-of-none, I wouldn’t say that I’m nearly as masterful as I could be, because of my split focus.

The falsehood here, or at least the fallacy – is the assumption that being a jack-of-all-trades is bad. Every team needs masters, but it also needs people who can effectively play the field. I’m the sweeper (like the soccer position), I’m the guy who runs all over the field to apply the extra oomph needed to get something done. We have a ton of very smart developers on our team, and each have mastery over different parts of a large and complex codebase. The problem is load balancing – new requirements effect different parts of the codebase, and having few masters covering each section, the workload spikes for different people at different times. It’s my job to help pick up the slack and make their jobs easier.

Is it true that it leads to burnout? Sure, but so does mastery – burnout isn’t caused by a kind or variety of work, it’s caused by a large quantity of work applied constantly. Without someone to help balance the load, the few people who work in a specific area will burn out. Rather, allowing the so-called ‘full-stack’ developer to jump in and help minimizes the burnout for everyone, including me.

Burnout, furthermore, is not something that can be avoided by less variety – indeed, I’ve found that it’s precisely the opposite, more variety keeps the work interesting, free from drudgery, and that helps to mitigate the effects of burnout.

Burnout can’t be ‘solved’ by simply focusing on less or more variety, it can’t be solved by any one person on the team, it has to be a collaborative effort. Your managers need to recognize burnout and react to it, your teammates have to come to support your efforts when your workload spikes, you need to concentrate on keeping the machine working smoothly via the use of automation and good working standards. That is to say, avoiding burnout is a team effort, Software development is a team sport.

Like any good team, not everyone can play the sweeper, or the goalie, or whatever. Everyone plays different positions and building a good team doesn’t mean hiring a bunch of sweepers, it means understanding how the different specialties of each team member will interact and produce the most value at the lowest cost – both monetary and personal.

In short, I don’t agree that DevOps is killing me personally, nor do I agree that it kills developers in general; but since I have no evidence, you have only my word for that – and since OP has no evidence, you’ve only his word too.

As an employee of Amazon, which is probably the biggest offender when it comes to making developers performs ops roles, I’d like to explain the reasoning behind the decision.

Making engineering teams responsible for managing their code in production gives engineers an incentive to write code that is fault-tolerant and easy to deploy. You are less likely to write code that may cause issues in production and shove the problems off to the ops team if you are also on the ops team. Being a developer also helps you perform the ops tasks better, since you have worked on the codebase and are therefore more likely to find the root cause of problems. Also, issues discovered while working operations drives improvements to the software to mitigate those issues.

This is yet another reason I like using frameworks when possible. Someone else is (almost) always looking to upgrade it for me, for free. :)

I can’t imagine why a fundamental piece of the Internet’s infrastructure is so poorly written. Even passing the source code through a code formatter would make it 10x easier to read and support. Is everyone that afraid of touching crypto code that they won’t even fix the most minor “problem”? Is the test coverage not good enough to permit code cleanup? If I had any ‘C’ proficiency at all I would give it a go, but would the changes of an “outsider” be accepted?