I just started to use npm (and indeed package managers in general) for my work recently and it's opened my eyes. It makes sense to me that this will be the preferred way of working for every dev/designer. Just as we mostly all use git now. It's hard to imagine that time when we just shared files via FTP and didnt use version control. I'd encourage anybody like me who was resistant, or working on a large code base that doesn't use those tools - give it a fair try on a side project.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11273859

Points: 1

# Comments: 3

As far as "extending" goes though, it's not always clear. Is a date picker extending jquery's core? I personally think not, but there has evolved an expectation that every web component must be initialized like so:

$('#container').doSomething();

So I suppose a lot of people do it that way just to have a familiar look to their API, or even just to show up in listing as a jquery plugin.

I rather thought the videos were examples of what not to do, along with constructive criticism explaining why.

As far as the terms - I didn't look it over closely to see if it's a fair or predatory deal. Anybody know if it's a fair deal?

More likely the bees were "persuaded" to use cannabis by either proximity of the plants and/or treating the plants in some way to attract the bees.

The first issue is that I've probably set up 10 or 15 app development and deployment "systems" if you will. I've found that it's very beneficial to automate the simple stuff but it quickly reaches a point of diminishing returns. A super-custom system always works great for a while until some big change or library upgrade or refactor or whatever comes down the pipe. Then we spend a ton of time resetting up everything. We have to keep the build system components up to date so it doesn't turn into an ancient mystery box. Sometimes an upgrade breaks the whole thing and then we're on stack exchange all day debugging a parser library or some other thing that we don't care about. Basically spending hours and days and weeks on the build system so we can have that sweet one-click (or fully automated) deploy.

The other thing is that we release frequently but we tend to double check everything before it goes to production. Our staging server is auto-deployed except DB changes which we do manually. Right now it's about 2-3 clicks for us to deploy to production and it works fine. We still do DB changes manually though. It takes a minute or two to deploy. I feel like the process encourages that final check that everything is cool.

I guess I'm nervous to set up something that deploys to production simply by adding a tag to a slack message or the git commit message. Should I get over myself? If I change my thinking is it possible that deployment to prod could be a non-event?

The dependence on third-party services like maps, messaging, flight data, etc. is an interesting topic. Services that help you to get up and running in a couple of clicks are awesome at first. But they can become a burden when your usage goes up beyond a trivial amount. This is a great lesson about thinking ahead when choosing third-party providers - either by passing the expense along to your customers or having a roadmap to phase them out when you hit a certain volume.

Another point is the one-time pricing which, in my mind, is somewhat of a ponzi scheme for a business model. I always cringe a little when I see a cool new app with a "one time payment for life!" pricing. You just can't support customers forever with a single lifetime payment unless you are earning revenue in some other way (i.e. advertising). It's easy to think that you'll continue to gain more customers forever, but you're setting yourself up to be crushed by your own success. Unless you're planning on regularly releasing new apps and/or in-app purchases for your customers to purchase, it's not a long-term business model.

Sorry to see the Just Landed go - it looked like a cool app. I think there is a lot to learn from this post so thanks to the author for posting.

It makes sense that isn't true but I have to admit it is what comes to mind.

Regardless, though, the term "pedophile" by definition is someone who is sexually attracted to children. There is no distinction about whether or not they actually committed a sexual act with a child. A person who commits a sexual act with a child is by definition a pedophile and a rapist, since children cannot legally give sexual consent.

From the sound of it these kids probably would have gotten into compliance immediately with a warning. You'd think it would be worth tumblr's time. Apparently not though.

None of us like seeing homeless people but the problem is not that they are unsightly or annoying - the problem is why are they homeless to begin with and what is such a wealthy city doing to help? If you're only thinking of your own selfish needs then it makes sense to just "sweep up" people on the streets and send them somewhere out of site. Perhaps a good whack on the head with a night stick will dissuade them from returning. If you have no heart or compassion then it probably seems like a great idea. But if you have any sense at all then perhaps you can try to use some of your privilege to find real solutions to homelessness and perhaps lend a hand rather than try to swat them away.