It's a shame. I live in Germany, and just heard of this for the first time at HN. I can't believe it... we are discussing stupid things in politics, the refugee "situation", Ukraine and Greece. I even heard of the recent earthquake.
But Indonesia burns? Not even worth a mention. Not a single word.
FWIW I posted this article on FB and all my American friends had not heard about this problem before either. Most Westerners are not aware of what is happening in Indonesia at all.
And this is just one (albeit major) news provider.
(I have seen this many times reported by my local national broadcaster in Finland. But then maybe I just notice and care because I know people who live in the affected area. E.g. in June this year, Asia Pacific Resources International Limited APRIL announced it will stop forestry work in order to reduce forest fires and conserve nature. http://yle.fi/uutiset/aasian_sellujatti_lopettaa_hakkuut_ind... )
Well, it's not close to us, so people don't really care. I mean, there's people starving everywhere, but that doesn't make problems like the refugee situation any less urgent. It's all relative...
The only thing I know about the future is that nobody knows about it. If you would force me to respond to your question, I'd say it would take a long while until AI's can predict taste, feelings, emotions, "change of minds" and so on and so on. Maybe AI's will do the websites for us, but even then I would not worry. Instead, I would do something with a real meaning and a real purpose. Like maintaining a garden. As skill which might come handy when the AI wars begin.
I think 4:30 will be hard to market, as most people are stuck in the stone age. As you said, productivity is not a matter of hours, it's a mix of many things. But that's not what the majority believes. Many people still believe we work like ice-cream sellers, who need to be around, not matter what. My guess is most people want to pay only for the hours you work so it will be hard to explain why you want to be paid for 8 hours when you just work 4 hours (even with same productivity).
Personally I work every day. When I am tired and not productive, I work less. When I feel good, I work much. The minimum is usually 6 hours. Maximum is usually 12 -14 hours. At weekends, it happens it's just 2 hours a day.
I don't count in work time. I count in "fun". If I have fun, I automatically work more. If I am not having fun, I need to double-check if I am the right thing. If it's not, I go away. If it is temporary or something that needs to be done, I make sure I have some good relaxing part afterwards.
This can happen even with first-world birth advantage like me in Germany. However, I don't have that many bullets around me. I wish you only the best for you, your family, and dreams.
A lot of Android developers don't like Java because of its syntax. Dart seems very similar in syntax to Java (which I assume was intentional, but the wrong thing to do)...so not much improvement there. No wonder Dart hasn't been getting anywhere near the excitement Go has received.
What Android needs isn't just a slightly better Java that isn't owned by Oracle, but something more like Python that has the performance of C++, for the next generation of developers. If they're going to deprecate Java in Android and cause everyone a lot of grief over it anyway, they might as well do it right, and for something truly exciting to make people rally around it.
Actually I think Dart has a lot of benefits in terms of syntax compared to Java. I am working with java since 2001, so I can tell. If you are interested to briefly look at it, you can do that here: https://www.dartlang.org/docs/synonyms/
Well, comparing with Java is aiming a bit low, isn't it?
Compare Dart's "shorter alternative" of a bog-standard class ...
// Shorter alternative
class Person {
String name;
// parameters prefixed by 'this.' will assign to
// instance variables automatically
Person(this.name);
}
Let's remove the comments for a more visually fair comparison:
class Person {
String name;
Person(this.name);
}
vs
class Person(val name: String)
Ok, you save a line. I don't think that's a big deal. Also, the Dart version is very clear about what's a field or not. The first example I found of Scala classes on their site is this:
class Point(xc: Int, yc: Int) {
var x: Int = xc
var y: Int = yc
def move(dx: Int, dy: Int) {
x = x + dx
y = y + dy
}
override def toString(): String = "(" + x + ", " + y + ")";
}
With text that says `x` and `y` are the fields. What about `xc` and `yc`, I thought those were the fields?
Another thing I like about Dart is that the possible variations on the constructors fall into place, consistently:
No constructor args:
class Person {
String name;
}
Optional constructor args:
class Person {
String name;
Person({this.name});
}
Super call:
class Person extends Animal {
String name;
Person(this.name) : super() ;
}
The short Scala form may do that as well for all I know,
> Let's remove the comments for a more visually fair comparison:
It was not meant to be unfair, I just took an existing example. If the Dart devs thought they needed the comments to make it clear what happens, then it's a decision I respect.
> Ok, you save a line.
Three.
> With text that says `x` and `y` are the fields. What about `xc` and `yc`, I thought those were the fields?
For standard classes, the compiler just does what you tell him:
If you write that you want a "val", you get an instance value, if you write a "var", you get an instance variable, if you write nothing (like in this case), you will usually get ... nothing.
That's perfectly clear in my book.
> Another thing I like about Dart is that the possible variations on the constructors fall into place, consistently:
In most languages, allowing a constructor which forgets to initialize things is considered a compiler/language bug.
(And having more than one constructor is pretty much considered to be an anti-pattern in Scala anyway.)
Yes. It's probably the same weird confusion I had, too ... because all "experts on the Internet" complain about Scala being a kitchen-sink of features, but if you actually walk into it, you just wonder how they managed to reduce and condense features into such a small, well-designed orthogonal core ... and wonder why no one else did it before.
In hindsight, Scala is much smaller than C#, F#, C++, OCaml, etc. while still being more expressive and comfortable to use.
I am 35, soon 36. I have worked as project manager for 3 years when I was around 30, then quit the job because it bored me to death. This wasn't career for me. Now I am developing a lot. I have a team, but its so small that I write a lot of code myself.
I enjoy planning and developing systems. I have seen all aspects of working in small (~100 persons) and big companies (160.000 persons). Why should I switch to management when I am good with what I do? Being a developer is not only a step in career, its also passion. Being a manager is not the next step, its a completely different job. You plan deadlines and HR and speak with customers and their contracts. This is not the next level, its something different. You can do this also without being a software developer in a previous life.
There are not that many older devs I know. The people of whome I speak are between 40 and 50. These folks are truly experts in their domains. I learn a lot when speaking with them. In some cases 40+ devs act and work like 20+ devs: they learn. Imagine what you can do with a knowledge grown by 20 years? Age really doesn't matter, except you want to do a completely different job after your software development time.
I have not suffered any salary drops so far. I could have steadily increased my income. However I decided before around 3 years to stop this and work as a freelancer. My time is limited, my rate is pretty normal and so I know pretty much what is possible in a year and what not. You could say, I have limited myself to a certain income. On the other hand since then I only worked on projects I liked. I have never written a single line of code of something I didn't like (except that one time, but I fired the customer).
For me, being an "old" dev with 35 as you maybe would call it I have realized that I found my high in my career: the full freedom of what I do and what not.
I get a lot of offers because of my experiences and I have the choice. Please consider "earning this choice" as an important point in your career. Many can have more money; a few can have the freedom.
That said, the 30+ or 40+ devs I know are not shy to switch jobs. I know a few who think like that, but well: I was 32 when I quit my job. Now I am 35 I don't need "safety". With 33 my son was born, I still didn't feel like that.
If you would ask me: don't worry about your career. Spend your time with the things you like. Life is to short to waste it with people who tell you what a "great career" is.
This book is containing my own story with Zen. How did it change me personally and how does my daily work life looks like. What have I understood from it. And so on. Actually the book contains the result of my practice. Inside the book you'll find many references to the actual original texts where you can read more about it.
You wrote "may contain" and "it does not". You simply don't know whats inside the book if you haven't read it.
Instead of assuming what the book is about or not, I invite you to just read it. If you are not happy with it I will refund you. Or if you buy it on Leanpub they will refund you according to their 100% happiness guarantee (on Leanpub you have even a bit more time to read the book).
My comment wasn't purely speculative. That would be unfair. It contains the thoughts that I had after reading your sample.
Here's one excerpt
Kôdô Sawaki says: if you need to sleep, sleep. Don’t plan your software when you are trying to sleep. Just sleep. If you code, code. Don’t daydream—code. If you are so tired that you cannot program, sleep. Even known multitaskers like Stephan Uhrenbacher have decided to work singlethreaded
Who's Sawaki? Who's Uhrenbacher? This is what I mean by missing context. Now that I think about it, some of the criticism (mine included) may be due to the fact that you picked the final chapter to represent a sample. You pretty much gave away the ending, and we have no clue how you got there.
Sawaki is a known Zen Master. He didn't write texts on his own; his books are just quotes collected by his students. The internet is full with information on him.
