You have my compliments and respect for undertaking an endeavor like re-thinking (and actually implementing!) rails architecture, so my apologies if my comments sound harsh or cynical. (I just want to talk about it)
I'm having a hard time understanding the need for this, especially because I'm highly suspicious of building any significant amount of abstraction on top of rails. This is because rails core is fucking insane. Besides the fact that it's in a constant state of flux, the amount of dynamic/meta/runtime fuckery that takes place makes it a living nightmare for security (and performance).
Rails already provides a highly-specific set of "convention over configuration" settings that work for most users with a basic understanding of HTTP. How exactly does this framework make those settings "better" besides re-arranging the basic set of abstractions that base rails provides (and adding more "fuckery" on top of that)?
Who is your target user group? Rails already attracts a significant number of new developers who have never worked with the web before because the abstractions are relatively easy and straightforward to understand. This is what makes rails very impressive and attractive, but, at the same time it locks a whole generation of new web developers into "the rails way" of thinking about the web (and later have to be untaught when they realize performance is actually important).
IMO If a "better" ruby web framework was to come into existence, I would encourage it to be more in touch with the basic abstractions that are already built into HTTP (see https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2616.txt) and not try to over-abstract those basic concepts so that moving among http frameworks (in ruby or other) requires significant domain knowledge.
Are there any performance benchmarks? I could see a project like this unintentionally adding 2-3x performance hits (without realizing it) due to the extra abstractions.
BTW, what the fuck is up with this book? I assume you want to sell it to me in the future so that I can learn how to "properly" use your brand new open-source framework? What the fuck is wrong with a readme and a wiki, especially if you ever considered larger open-source adoption? Are you so self-righteous that you think I should feel entitled to have the pleasure of being able to download "a preview" of your e-book in your fucking readme?
Don't be an asshole man, the guy made a framework, the readme is plenty fine, and he has a nice book to sell with it. How are you so self-righteous to judge how other people should run their open source software project? How do you feel so entitled that you should get everything this guy makes for free? He is just asking for you to consider buying the book he spent a lot of effort into writing.
BTW, what's up with the crazy assumptions about performance hits? You do realize we're talking about Rails here right?
Sorry...just been annoyed at rails lately, was drunk reading through here, and wrongly took out my personal frustrations as a diatribe against the author. I'm an asshole.
", so my apologies if my comments sound harsh or cynical."
While in fact you don't mean them to _just_ be harsh or cynical, but you also want to personally insult the OP and make him feel bad about posting something.
Why couldn't Sinatra create some sort of underlying tree structure that could perform in O(log N) as opposed to O(N). That way you get the readability with the perf.
It couldn't create a tree in all instances because it allows full regexes in the routes. It could create a hybrid (split into trees for anything with a known static prefix), or go the full hog to a finite automata, though. But at least the latter is suddenly a big complexity increase.
From the text layout of the pdf it is anyone's guess. There are no verso/recto margins but chapters always start on odd pages and the header/footer is setup for verso/recto. Hopefully the final version will have better typesetting regardless of distribution medium.
Yes print version is on the way. I will use the proceeds from the pre-release sale to hire my trusty copy-editor again, work on some exercises, and then we'll have a v1.0 release, print and PDF.
Any chance for electronic formats other than PDF? The lack of real reflow in PDF means it is pretty useless on smaller devices. Epub or mobi are equally useful, anything besides just PDF really...
Good post. So much this. If your pricing doesn't make sense, you will eventually find out one way or another - but don't give out discounts solely for the purpose of bringing in new customers. Especially if they are not seeing the value of your product at its listed price point.
This will just lead to them wanting more. And I've often found that the users paying the least ask for the most.
> And I've often found that the users paying the least ask for the most.
This is a universal truth. Any business where they tried to under-cut the competition will have horror stories about their lowest-paying constantly-dickering customers trying to squeeze every last ounce of use out of the service or widget they under-bought.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this essentially ruling that everything that you own and store in the 'cloud' doesn't belong to you in the sense that it is not subject to the same protections as other property you own?
I can see this having huge negative consequences for all US 'cloud' business.
Not really: the stipulations in the agreement you make with the cloud provider explicitly cover data rights. Rights to subpoena data is completely different.
You are right about the implications, but this is old news. This is what is known as the "third-party doctrine" and it goes back decades. It is not an entirely unreasonable doctrine, based on the history and text of the 4th amendment. More importantly, Judge Pauley is obligated to follow Supreme Court precedent on this issue. Our system of law is based heavily on "stare decisis", or the idea that we should follow precedent and not keep re-interpreting the law or changing the settled expectations of society.
That said, at least some members of the Supreme Court have expressed concern about how much the 3rd party doctrine guts our privacy rights in the modern age. In a recent case (Jones), the Supreme Court held that attaching a GPS receiver to a car violated the defendant's rights because there was a warrantless intrusion when the device was physically placed on his car. For now, they side-stepped the issue of what would happen if, for example, the police collected all of your movements from a 3rd party like OnStar, which uses your car's built-in GPS. Judge Sotomayer, in a concurring opinion, discussed how the 3rd party doctrine may have to be changed:
"More fundamentally, it may be necessary to reconsider the premise that an individual has no reasonable expectation of privacy in information voluntarily disclosed to third parties. E.g., Smith, 442 U. S., at 742; United States v. Miller, 425 U. S. 435, 443 (1976). This approach is ill suited to the digital age, in which people reveal a great deal of information about themselves to third parties in the course of carrying out mundane tasks. People disclose the phone numbers that they dial or text to their cellular providers; the URLs that they visit and the e-mail addresses with which they correspond to their Internet service providers; and the books, groceries, and medications they purchase to online retailers. Perhaps, as JUSTICE ALITO notes, some people may find the “tradeoff” of privacy for convenience “worthwhile,” or come to accept this “diminution of privacy” as “inevitable,” post, at 10, and perhaps not. I for one doubt that people would accept without complaint the warrantless disclosure to the Government of a list of every Web site they had visited in the last week, or month, or year. But whatever the societal expectations, they can attain constitutionally protected status only if our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence ceases to treat secrecy as a prerequisite for privacy. I would not assume that all information voluntarily disclosed to some member of the public for a limited purpose is, for that reason alone, disentitled to Fourth Amendment protection. See Smith, 442 U. S., at 749 (Marshall, J., dissenting) (“Privacy is not a discrete commodity, possessed absolutely or not at all. Those who disclose certain facts to a bank or phone company for a limited business purpose need not assume that this information will be released to other persons for other purposes”); see also Katz, 389 U. S., at 351–352 (“[W]hat [a person] seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected”).
Resolution of these difficult questions in this case is unnecessary, however, because the Government’s physical intrusion on Jones’ Jeep supplies a narrower basis for decision. I therefore join the majority’s opinion."
Even further: We don't possess the copyright to the algoritms of non-plaintext. So effectively we don't own anything we codify in a proprietary format...
I'm having a hard time understanding the need for this, especially because I'm highly suspicious of building any significant amount of abstraction on top of rails. This is because rails core is fucking insane. Besides the fact that it's in a constant state of flux, the amount of dynamic/meta/runtime fuckery that takes place makes it a living nightmare for security (and performance).
Rails already provides a highly-specific set of "convention over configuration" settings that work for most users with a basic understanding of HTTP. How exactly does this framework make those settings "better" besides re-arranging the basic set of abstractions that base rails provides (and adding more "fuckery" on top of that)?
Who is your target user group? Rails already attracts a significant number of new developers who have never worked with the web before because the abstractions are relatively easy and straightforward to understand. This is what makes rails very impressive and attractive, but, at the same time it locks a whole generation of new web developers into "the rails way" of thinking about the web (and later have to be untaught when they realize performance is actually important).
IMO If a "better" ruby web framework was to come into existence, I would encourage it to be more in touch with the basic abstractions that are already built into HTTP (see https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2616.txt) and not try to over-abstract those basic concepts so that moving among http frameworks (in ruby or other) requires significant domain knowledge.
Are there any performance benchmarks? I could see a project like this unintentionally adding 2-3x performance hits (without realizing it) due to the extra abstractions.
BTW, what the fuck is up with this book? I assume you want to sell it to me in the future so that I can learn how to "properly" use your brand new open-source framework? What the fuck is wrong with a readme and a wiki, especially if you ever considered larger open-source adoption? Are you so self-righteous that you think I should feel entitled to have the pleasure of being able to download "a preview" of your e-book in your fucking readme?