gtd

Peppa Pig is at least funny. The one that pushed me over the edge wrt to behavior modeling was Caillou. My god people have some self respect as parents. You have to have to create some boundaries for children, not just knee-jerk syrupy-sweet coddling from dawn til dusk.

> It is bad practice to have your authentication database be the same as your app database.

No, this is resume-driven-development, Google-scale-wannabe FUD. Understand your requirements. Multiple databases is non-trivial overhead. The only reason to add multiple databases is if you need scale that can't be handled via simple caching.

Of course it's hard to anticipate what level of scale you'll have later, but I can tell you this: for every tiny startup that successfully anticipated their scaling requirements and built a brilliant microservices architecture that proactively paved the way to their success, there's a 100 burnt out husks of companies that never found product market fit because the engineering team was too busy fantasizing about "web-scale" and padding their resume by overengineering every tiny and unused feature they built.

If you want to get a job at FAANG and suckle at the teat of megacorporations who's trajectory was all based on work done in the early 2000s, by all means study up on "best practices" to recite at your system design interview. On the other hand, if you want to build the next great startup, you need to lose the big co mentality and start thinking critically from first principles about power to weight ratio and YAGNI.

We did not publicize it in any way because we are a legit film streaming company with hundreds of distributors worldwide, and no good can come from any awareness of a site that looks like ours streaming pirated content. Maybe some day.

But what would be the advantage over just running Drupal on PHP?

Yes, but if you fuck it up heads are gonna roll.

I switched to Notational Velocity years ago after trying to type things into Evernote, yet I am a premium user. Why? Because Evernote's killer feature is pasting in any kind of content and syncing that across devices. It is an extremely useful dumping ground for miscellaneous pasted content.

It's not about people who don't know what computers are. It's about creating simple solutions to common problems. Most people do not want to fiddle with their computers regardless of how well they understand them, they want to accomplish a task and move on. Even as a developer this is why I choose OS X over Linux.

The question is how far can they push it without totally frustrating the power users. I think it may be inevitable that Apple eventually stops making machines that the majority of non-Apple developers can tolerate.

Could you elaborate on:

> Sandboxing non-App store apps

I thought sandboxing was only required for App store apps?

Sure dependency hell, it's a problem anywhere. It's the worst in Rails though. Absolutely 100 times worse than PHP.

> If something with Drupal's advantages were available within Rails (as an engine or what have you) it would be a clear game-over for other stacks vs. Rails.

I have to disagree here. There are clear use cases for either Drupal or Rails. I understand why you yearn for a Ruby Drupal, because dealing with PHP is a hassle, but objectively there is little to be gained since Drupal is already a beast and performance would only be hurt by being ported to Ruby.

Aside from that, the key advantage that Rails or other low-level web frameworks have over Drupal is that they don't make any assumptions beyond the fact that you are using HTTP. With Drupal there is an incredible amount of pre-existing architectural cruft to enable its powerful functionality, but it creates a ton of overhead to deal with as soon as you want to do something that doesn't neatly fit it's paradigm. As soon as you brought something like this into Rails then you'd be defeating the purpose of its simple elegance.

I just don't see any way to separate out the best of both worlds. They have very distinct use cases.

Aside from PHP being around twice as long and around for years during the nascent phase of open source web apps, the number one reason it has more and more popular turnkey apps is the same reason it "killed" perl: easy deployment.

The secondary reason is indeed cultural, but not it's nothing so abstract as what 37signals does. Rather it's the technical culture of moving fast and breaking things. With Rails you need to stay on top of upgrades all the time. If you are actively working on an app then this is a net benefit because you get new features. But it also creates maintenance work downstream, and not just with application code, but application servers are also relatively unstable. When you have something with a high heterogenous installation count like WordPress or other popular open-source apps, the pain of maintaining version compatibility and keeping it running over time far dwarfs any benefit of using a more powerful language like Ruby.

I know as well as anyone the relative futility of relying on HN, Reddit, or TC coverage for building a successful tech product. Feedback and traffic from social news is merely a blip that says next to nothing one way or another about your long-term prospects.

However, if your site goes down for any reason a postmortem of this sort is definitely warranted. The word "launch" is not signifying much more than a point in time in this case, and I think you're jumping to a lot of conclusions about what hopes they were pinning on this event.

There was an article posted here a while ago that made the case that Lisp is so powerful that it makes it feasible to do much more yourself rather than relying on libraries, and thus it attracts a higher level of hacker that wants to do things their own way and is more intolerant of compromises made in the name of standardization. Sort of the opposite of the lowest common denominator approach of successful enterprise languages like Java. The failure to thrive of Common Lisp is strong evidence of the worse-is-better phenomenon.

I don't think he consciously thinks that, but his entire argument seems to stem from Facebook being such a necessity that they are morally obligated to follow social norms or be somehow coerced into doing so, despite evidence that this has ever been a possibility.