Mostly a matter of preference. Several tower users on our team and a SourceTree user. Try both, take cost into consideration, and go with what works for you.
Three things I've noticed as a manager of several developers who use or don't use GUI's for git: Pre-commit self code review tends much better with a GUI or at least a good git-aware diff program, leading to higher code quality. Visualization of branches, merges, etc. is much easier with a GUI. Complex merges with conflicts, partial commits, etc. tend to be easier with a GUI like tower.
It's not immediately apparent from the front accessible parts of Bitbucket's website, but if you refer users with a provided link you also get up to 3 extra free users.
"Because it is schema less ... you can trivially add new rich schemas" made me lol. Maybe this makes sense to Mongo users, but I have no idea what you mean here and the language you use to describe this feature is, well, contradictory to say the least.
it means a typo in release-15 auto-creates a whole new database without anyone noticing and you sit around and wonder where all of the data went yesterday.
Just today I enjoyed explaining to a developer why his insert into a timestamp failed because of formatting, with a nice english error message. Thanks Postgres!
Whereas the same thing last year with Mongo just inserted the wrong date into a misspelled key and we didn't figure it out for days.
Actually it does seem contradictory reading back on it. I meant it doesn't have a fixed, enforced schema like SQL databases and it is easy to add new data structures e.g. lists, maps, sets.
Lets not forget that he supported "the broad moral view of society", as evidenced by a popular vote at the time. I'll agree that the "broad moral view" has switched, and turn about is fair play. Let us punish the new minority.
Ah, but he has a choice to be in that minority. He could work on his empathy, examine his beliefs, and come to the correct conclusion (that two people having equal protection for their sexual preferences will hurt him in no way). All he needed to do to avoid this situation was right wrong beliefs, and publicly acknowledge the same, the same way he previously publicly embraced those beliefs. Those in whose oppression he assisted have no such option, as you cannot, at least according to current science, examine your sexual preferences and change them.
Fair enough. To be honest, I was in the majority with Brendan Eich at that time (although not in California), based on sincere beliefs. And I am now in the majority with you and others in being all for marriage equality and viewing it as a civil rights issue. But because of where I am now and where I have been, I feel empathy with those struggling to sort out their feelings or that are still on the other side. Most people who I know who were or are still against gay marriage aren't "homophobic" or hold have any problem with gays, they just don't view marriage as a civil right, like the civil rights of 60's, since marriage has always been a man and woman thing since the institution was invented. And while I may disagree with them, it doesn't matter to me in the larger context, and I still willing to love these people and I don't think they're bigots worthy of my contempt unless they prove to be so beyond this single issue. I respect that this is where I differ from many of you, who, this single issue is enough for you to hate someone or wish for nothing but evil upon them. And I'm not talking about the figures at the forefront of the anti-gay-rights movement, but the every day people I know who may be more conservative than I and besides an occasional vote or even a donation that differs from mine, that is only a small part of who they are.
Oh, I can hardly claim any real moral superiority. I was a Christian fundamentalist as recently as 2006. Apparently zealots for one team often end up being zealots on the other side when they change their mind.
I do not hate Brendan Eich. I do think he purchased what he is receiving, though.
> He could work on his empathy, examine his beliefs, and come to the correct conclusion
Yeah, if he keeps looking and examining what's wrong with him he will eventually see that there really are five lights. I mean, that's all it takes right? We simply choose what to believe as it's convenient to us?
And I was talking about how convenient it must be to simply choose to believe something different.
As far as "five lights", I suggest viewing "Chain of Command" from Star Trek: The Next Generation, which has a famous scene that riffs off of Orwell's 1984.
I think we're up to 59% pro as of now, with broad demographic trends pointing toward further shrinkage of the anti-group above and beyond the natural attrition that comes from it no longer being comfortable to express bigoted views.
This is an issue where public opinion is changing quickly, as it often does when oppression becomes recognized as oppression. I'd recommend taking the limit of the function as yr->2020.
It is hard to argue, however, that Javascript (the thing Cofeescript purports to improve) doesn't "allow you to write bad code easily" or "makes it hard to write bad code". I have avoided Coffeescript and probably will continue to do so, but it seems to at least try to make it a bit harder to write bad code, albeit not getting all the way there apparently.
I've done sufficient with both Angular and React to have decided to go with React for next our project. Its a better fit for this particular project because the "reusable components" paradigm fits what we're doing, which includes building a non-model-specific framework that we can reuse for different models, where the framework renders slightly differently based on meta data provided with the model. We'll probably use Backbone for the model (& meta) & router. I like Angular, and would like to use it for a project that's more concrete and less meta.
Something about Angular rubs me the wrong way. I think it has to do with dirty checking. Either that or the scope magic that happens. React, comparatively, is quite straight forward. I hope it stays that way, a minimal API and no magic.
The more I look into react the more I wonder if some intermediary representation of the DOM ought to be standardized so that a native "diff/batch" algorithm can be provided as regular functions. I think react would help this cause if it can break up into several projects (react-events, react-virtual-dom, react-dom-diff/batch, etc). Perhaps other projects can adopt parts of react into their own frameworks. Just a thought.
Core team member here. That's excellent feedback and we are definitely going to be pushing in that direction where we can. API simplicity will always be a primary goal and a modular core implementation will help advancement of mobile support and testability. The event system is already self contained and shouldn't depend on anything in React at all.
Around our shop (we have several PhoneGap projects) we frequently refer to Android browser as the IE of mobile. (and we're referring to IE6-8). Its crazy how many really key parts of HTML & CSS don't work on various versions of Android browser that are still very much alive and well, including some that worked on 2.3 and stopped working on 4.0 or 4.1. We basically have to turn our apps into static pages for anything < Android 4.2.
As an adult iOS/Android user, I am annoyed by IAP games, but I don't feel like I'm being bamboozled or defrauded. Nothing warranting government interference.
But as a parent of a 2 year old, I am not pleased with some kids games developers trying to take advantage of children (and I'm talking toddlers) using devices where parents haven't blocked IAP, or placing ads that they presumably get click-revenue from kids not understanding what they're clicking on...
