This is unlawful conduct under Section 45 of the Competition and Consumer Act of 2010, as well as RICO statutes.

Confirm. My uncle retired from the ARC with a *very* good pension. I'd never give a dime to ARC.

I've got 30 years of processional experience, so does that make me more of an expert? Snarky comments aside:

The name "compiler" is primarily used for programs that translate source code from a high-level programming language to a lower level language (e.g., assembly language or machine code).

This is from Wikipedia, and is the most commonly-accepted definition in the industry, academia notwithstanding. I hardly think that JavaScript qualifies.

I'm still not sure why you chose to create monolithic applications, when the clear industry trend is towards more flexibility, particularly by using web services.

That was funny! Bravo!

Actually, client-side code is useful for a number of things: input validation and web page changes without having to reload the web page immediately come to mind. But you don't want to put all your eggs into one basket - client-side code is notoriously bad at security and any sort of serious processing. You *want* to push your database lookups and security and heavy-lifting processing to the back-end.

They both have their uses, and they can both be useful.

The problem is that you've just created a monolithic application that ties one single database to one single front-end. What happens when you want to swap out databases? Opa only runs on Mac or Linux, how about all those corporate applications that need to be written on Windows and talk to SQL Server or Oracle? It's just another language that corporate developers not only need to learn, but need to sell to management - a very hard sell when there is a huge codebase in ASP, ASP.NET, VB6, VB.NET, etc., and I can find ASP or ASP/NET or VB6 developers almost anywhere. I'm not going to mention Java because not only is it dog slow, but Java developers tend to want a huge amount of cash to create what usually is slow, buggy code. Corporate shops want proven technologies - now, if you want to use Opa to generate JS/HTML front-end apps, ASP/ASP.NET apps on the back-end, and a web service layer to let them talk to each other, then maybe you'd have Corporate America sitting up and taking notice. But as it is, it's an interesting idea, nothing more - I'd never let it in my development shop, and even if I did, the architectural committee would hang me out to dry.

And "compiling to JavaScript" is just ignorant - there's no such thing. Maybe the author means "translating to JavaScript"?

Absolutely. You *want* a separation between your front-end and your back-end, for audit compliance as well as security. If you tie your front-end to your back-end, you go right back to the problem that monolithic applications have - what happens if your boss decides he doesn't like whatever database you've got the corporate jewels in and wants to move to something with a track record, like Oracle, SQL Server or DB/2? If you have a clean separation, you can swap out the back-end with little if any changes needed on the front-end. What is it about this flexibility that people don't get?

Only for those who haven't been using Ajax and JQuery/Moo/whatever for a while. This is old hat, and there are a *lot* of websites doing some very cool stuff with this idea.

Again, if you use web services on the back-end, you don't have to care what the back-end is written, since they all use the same interface layer language - XML or JSON.

Not a good idea from a SOX-compliant point of view, since once you generate the random login/password, you lose control. See my previous post.

People do all kinds of crazy things in commercial environments when their boss says "I need this app written today!" Throwing sanctimonious rocks at them makes you feel superior, but makes you look like a jerk to the people who actually have to do this crazy stuff for a living.

Using a config file isn't even a good idea, since anyone with enough access to get to your code may have enough access to get to the config file, and the auditors will certainly frown on that when you have to undergo the torture of a SOX audit. We add another layer of security onto this by serving up certain host/login/password via a web service, but for most applications, the database layer is isolated by using web services that serve up the data via XML/JSON rather than letting applications or clients have direct access to the database. It also gives a single point of control for logging, security, and auditing purposes.

We have multiple web servers in the enterprise - it would be a hassle to change all of their config files if we moved the server from, say, SQL Server to Oracle - so we have everyone talk to the web services server - and we have only one point that needs to be changed, and the changes propagate to the clients and applications automatically.

Another advantage of using web services to isolate everything is that for desktop apps you no longer need to install database-specific drivers on everyone's desktop, a fact that has made Operations very happy.

Already done, sorry to say. The parents are scum for exploiting their kid for money - they had to sign those releases...

Totally a waste of time. UUCP over Bluetooth works just fine. Supports arbitrary packet sizes, checkpoint/restart, low overhead, etc. In short, UUCP is designed for efficient data transfer over a low speed unreliable network like the cell phone network, unlike SMS.

SMS over a cell phone is probably one of the worst ideas anyone has ever come up with. Are we sure this wasn't a late April Fool's joke?

they may have pretty free rein in terms of what they're allowed to access on your computer

Actually, this is correct only in terms of criminal liability - since Circuit City wasn't apparently an agent of the government, the Fourth Amendment doesn't apply here. But they may still be liable for a civil suit.

Moral: if you've got stuff on your computer that you'd rather not have others taking a peek at, encryption software is your friend.

Stipulated, counselor; does this mean that the RIAA and its individual lawyers can be sanctioned - by the court, the bar, or both?

Not H5N1, but H1N1. Similar to the 1918 flu.