It was just an example off the top of my head that has nothing to do with text boxes. Forget the fucking browser; in JavaScript, the string "009" when implicitly cast to a number does not turn into the integer 9. That's stupid.

The conversion of the text "009" to a value of something other than 9 is a language feature and has nothing to do with text boxes.

He was mad that GitHub wasn't enforcing this policy with all projects, even though it's absofuckinglutely unnecessary. And if you look at the page, he was writing a post with manual 72-ish line breaks inside an HTML context (GitHub comments), making it look stupid.

It has nothing to do with the Linux kernel. If you read the post in context, he was mad that GitHub didn't enforce 72 character limits with all projects.

Oh I forgot the main point: garbage collected vs. non-garbage collected environments/languages tend to always have faster development times.

My observations:

1. Overall, UI+Navigation takes longer. There's more manual lifting to write non-standard page elements. Writing margins and locations directly in code instead of by layout managers, etc.
2. Crashes are harder to track down. This is probably true for ANY environment that's C-based.

Swift will probably close the gap, especially for #2.

Can you explain? Automatic type conversions are a feature of a language not a browser.

One thing that he was absolutely wrong about: his insistence that commit messages be wrapped to 72 characters. The summary is that he railed against the idea that display tools (like HTML) should automatically wrap text because humans know better how to wrap text.

Why the 72 character limit? So it appropriately works on 1960's display technology.

Oh, and the hilarious thing about this is that he word wrapped his own HTML text in the very Gtihub post, making it display wrong in the web browser, while everyone else's text looks correct at the right width as prescribed by the page's CSS rules.

https://github.com/torvalds/li...

He's right, though. From a language purist perspective, Javascript is an awful language. The fact that 009 entered into a textbox doesn't translate into the number 9 is a historical flaw that is purely a language failure. Just because it's popular doesn't make it good. And that's the argument that's going on here.

First of all, I'm a developer.

So, I work for a company who wants the product on all platforms... we dev on all platforms, and we even outsourced a windows app (ha!). But anyways, it's true. It's way faster to iterate in Android than it is in iOS. So our features come out on Android first.

I can hear everyone saying "get better iOS developers!" Well, maybe. But I don't think so. The devs are pretty much equally capable on both sides. Maybe Swift will change things, but the reality is is that Android development is faster than iOS development, and there's no internet chatter that will change the reality of what we're experiencing. Maybe Swift will change that, and if that's the case, cool. But right now, it's faster to iterate on Android hands down, and I believe (obviously an opinion here, however an educated opinion), the reason is Java is faster to develop in than Objective-C.

LOL there's more to this story. Rabbits need real food, not grass. You can't leave a dog in a cage with grass and expect it to live.

But anyways, I certainly would agree with anyone who thinks our sentencing laws are anything but fair. I am dumbfounded by tax crimes which give life sentences and murders which give 8 years.

People have been doing this for thousands of years, to protect the interests of both involved. For example, dowries which must be repaid to the woman if there is a divorce, husband has to pay wife half of salary for half as long as they have been married, etc. I wouldn't say it's self-harming; I'd say it's generally to a certain penalty that both parties have an interest in not breaking the contract.

I actually mean that the negative consequences built into the contract. If someone creates a contract that says "we're married" and that's it, you don't even need a contract. If it says "then we split assets 50/50 if broken", then you have negative consequences of breaking it, and if you don't want to honor the agreement, then the State can help enforce it.

Listen, I agree with your assessment of how it should be, but the fact of the matter is the discussion of marriage within the State. If we removed marriage as a facet of the State, we're on the same page. But while there exists laws of the State based on marriage, my view is that recognition of same-sex marriage grants me (and my husband) all of these rights that I wouldn't otherwise have.

Should it not be a government or religious definition? Yes. We agree. But I sure as fuck don't want some dipshit in the hospital denying me the ability to visit my husband, and recognition of same-sex marriage is an achievement for me to deal with the fucking laws that exist. I'll take recognition of same-sex marriage by the State as a temporary path to fixing the fucked up shit that exists about marriage and the State and the Church.

In any case, I want what you want as well.

Why? Evidence? Love marriages are considered a modern Western invention.