I, for one, recommend "Clean Code". It did not "change my life" because I was already on the path the book describes. Nonetheless it was a good validation, it certainly coalesced in a good form many topics that were simply fluctuating in my mind, and is a good reference to have around for refreshing once in a while.
To put this in context: I keep it next to "Agile Software Development" (by the same Uncle Bob), "Working Effectively with Legacy Code" (by M. Feathers), and "Refactoring" (by M. Fowler).
HTH (no, I have no direct or indirect benefit from 'advertising' these books and their authors)
is it me or this (and it's not the only thing in recent Google design tweaks/refreshes) is quite "[formerly-known-as] Metro" ? Flatter, less colors, more minimal... (not complaining, just wondering)
Not to be polemic, but I agree that there's something in the current typographic settings that could be improved. I tried to disable the CSS rule from corporate.css::1 on body for font-family (making the font fallback from 'Myriad pro' to the Helvetica family from foundation.css::75) and I think the result is much more readable - although it still has space for improvement in line-height and contrast). HTH
when we see these reports/analysis it seems the answer is always the same: Capital Gain.
However, I think this whole line of inquiry is mis-titled: these reports always tell us how the rich people are making now their income. Which, I feel, is not a good hint as to how you can become rich.
For the greater public, the question of "how the rich people went from 0 to $1B" might more interesting than "how the rich people maintain their $1B+". Definitely I find the latter more interesting than the former (probably because I don't have $1B+)
!confused. Using Chrome, I right-click > "View Page Source", copy, paste in the first textbox, click "Convert it" and the result seems to be identical to the input... err... what did I do wrong?
Particularly interesting: slides 82-85 : The goal is a solution that feels fast to the user, and that goal ought to trump engineering considerations (eg: minimize number of round-trips) by default.
I always feel weird about these Google interviews... The day I got out of college I would have been very strong on most of the stuff mentioned here. Nowadays I'd fail, although the years spent in the industry have improved my experience under so many aspects...
Is Google's interview biased for 'right out of college/phd' applicants?
The proposed bulleted list has its merits, BUT I think that AWS' current selling line (about lower TCO) is quite good at gathering support from those that might (still) judge things in the traditional terms of ROI. SO, the choice might be deliberate?
"Then I got hooked. I like the feeling of being able to control everything in a browser"
I liked this. Remove the "in a browser" clause, and I think you found the core of every passionate developer. There's also those that enjoy sharing with, or enabling others, but I suspect this one covers 99.99999% of all code writers out there.
Found via http://scrum.jeffsutherland.com/2012/04/yet-another-waterfal... where the Waterfall methodology seems to be blamed for the failure of the project, although I can't quite find evidence that the methodology would be the core problem with this project (might be coincidental)