javascript:void(document.cookie=prompt(document.cookie,document.cookie));

Via stackoveflow.

The initial reaction of people close by was fear, disgust, and horror, followed by understanding, compassion, and finally by a genteel unspoken agreement to pretend he doesn’t exist.

The young man suffered from Tourette’s syndrome.

I realized at that moment that taking offense is a choice.

We chose not to be offended by this young man due to his condition.

Knowing this I’ve gained a magic power. I can chose not to take offense. I can choose not to be bothered by things that really should bother me.

And once in a while I actually employ this power – instead of fuming and screaming bloody murder, sometimes I choose simply not to be offended and move on.

Not often enough though.

Particularly interesting is their happiness with the type system in Scala. I’ve found happiness with duck typing, and these guys are moving away from duck typing to something else, so another viewpoint for me to check out. Good.

But – blaspheme – they’re using Scala to replace Ruby. The Ruby community is incensed. Did these guys do their homework? Did they research every possible queuing system in existence before writing their own? Did they not try JRuby? Surely there’s a way to make it work with Ruby. These guys must be incompetent, lazy, or just plain stupid.

I’m not going to link to all the drama, but here is one of the most reasonable, well written criticisms.

Now this is a reasonable criticism, and the comments do provide a good bit of insight and justification. Heck, even one of the authors of RabbitMQ justifies why the Twitter guys decided not to use RabbitMQ.

Fine. But this thing with the Ruby community getting bent out of shape whenever someone decides to use another language is getting old. From all appearances the Twitter folks did much more evaluation and study than 95% of the rest of the world would have. They decided to use something else. They’re writing a book about it.

So move on. Somebody found something they like better than Ruby. Shocking.

Not everybody is going to like your system. I thought DHH had already expressed how he feels about what he judges to be extraneous requirements. I think DHH meant he doesn’t care. Looks like the rest of the Ruby crowd cares deeply, religiously, fervently.

I looked for an app to find and remove duplicates but surprisingly didn’t find anything very good. So I had to write my own.

This is a very simple script – it scans the directory tree you specify, looks for exact duplicates, and removes the duplicates.

It’s not very smart about which copy it removes. It’s not smart about finding files that are “similar” – it only finds exact matches. It ignores small files (intentionally – it’s easy to make it deal with small files).

It uses /temp for its output and cache files, so it’s targeting windows. Change that to /tmp if you’re running unix.

I built in a caching mechanism to save the results of scanning the disk, but it turned out not to be too useful and the script ran faster than I expected, so the caching is commented out.

Here it is: FileInfo.py .

	$('#someform').submit( function() {
		$.post("/some/url/", $(this).serializeArray(),
			function(data){
			    console.log(data);
			}, "json");
		return false;
	 } );

This is great, but the result of serializeArray is an integer indexed array whose values are (key,value) pairs. Eg.

	var data = $(this).serializeArray(),
	console.log( data[0] );
>> output: Object name=somename value=537

I’m wondering why the array looks like this, instead of being a dictionary (associate array, hash, or whatever you want to call it) such that the keys are “name”s and values are “value”s. Eg.

	var data = $(this).serializeArray(),
	console.log( data.somename );
>> output: 537

Anybody know the answer?

With Javascript, particularly when used correctly, which for me means in the Way Of JQuery, the thought process is more like “When some event happens, this guy will wake up and he’ll know what to do. He’ll remember his name, what he was supposed to work on, and he’ll be carrying his own tools. He might get blocked at some point, but then he’ll just wait around and when he’s ready to go he’ll remember who he is, what he was doing, and how far along doing it he was. And when he’s done he’ll go away and along with him will go his tools and any other mess he made”.

Javascript is a lot more “guy with the thing” thinking instead of “what’s on this shelf here?” thinking. I guess that’s called closures, or something like that. Anyway, I’m liking it.

Photo by St-Even.

void log(lazy char[] dg)
{
    if (logging)
	fwritefln(logfile, dg());
}

void foo(int i)
{
    log("Entering foo() with i set to " ~ toString(i));
}

Note the lazy keyword in the definition of the log function, which tells D to only evaluate the value if needed (ie. lazily).

Nice. Smells a little like Twisted’s deferred business, except different.

Via Raganwald.