rizwan

A while back they added it again, so you can use + in your searches now.

> If what you do doesn't make an impact for customers and/or other teams in the organization, was it really worth doing?

The problem is that, at review time at Google, you have to be able to "quantify" the impact. Many types of impact are quantifiable (e.g. "Made server request scale from 100 query-per-second to 1,300 qps", "reduced code size by 30%", etc.).

It's much harder to measure, say, the impact of a refactor where you made the code easier to reason about and more maintainable, so that future work can be done on it more easily.

I witnessed the same thing at Google; I worked on a project that everyone joked only existed because the person who wrote it wanted promo, and the best way to get it was to design a very complex system, and convince others to adopt it. (He did get it, and promptly switched teams.)

Some things have been made better, though. I've heard that going from L4 → L5 now involves much more influence from your manager, since they would know and, without quantifying something like a refactor, can speak to the positive impact you had in a project.

In the context of sales, you can have a conversation about perseverance and not taking no for an answer. However:

> At the end of that example, Brandon laughed and said, “I was about to say something.” He paused, and then went on to say, “No doesn’t necessarily mean no.”

Brandon _changed_ the context into something offensive and then made the joke. This was an attempt at rape joke. He even prepped the audience for it by laughing and saying, "I wasn't going to say this, but..."

AIM did go mobile. It was in the iPhone App Store on day 1. Push notifications didn’t even exist back then. When push notifications were announced by Apple in June 2009 as part of iPhone OS 3.0, AIM was the “partner” they used to load-test it during WWDC.

Source: I worked on AIM for iPhone.

IMO AIM struggled because: - it was a highly tuned, specialized C backend, and it never migrated to something that could be improved easily. - backend technical challenges (as well as legal issues) made storing chat history very difficult - Hardly any info was collected about AIM screennames, so it was hard to build a social graph from it - AIM registration was the same as AOL signup, and that registration process was very cumbersome, imo. - Most AIM accounts had no email address associated with them, so it was impossible to do password resets, for all the locked up AIM screennames.

As a client developer on AIM, it was hard to make a material improvement to AIM, though we certainly did try

I get the meaning of the "Cobra Effect", but I'm not understanding it here w.r.t. disabling paste on password fields.

I think the way they framed The Offer is a good one. He makes it clear that he wants you to stay if you want to stay, and is giving you a way out if you're not passionate or happy in your job anymore.

Many years ago they did that at AOL (a voluntary severance package), and IIRC I don't think it came across as that sincere.

To further expand on Apple's recommendation to not make Swift libraries just yet — It's also an matter of compatibility. You could certainly make a Swift framework, but given that Swift as a language is changing every 6 months or so right now, it doesn't make sense to make a framework using Swift.

You could easily hold up another project if you haven't changed your Swift code to the latest, or the opposite is true as well: Your Swift framework is up-to-date with the latest language, but the app using your framework is not, etc.

In addition to some constraints on the type of product (i.e. watch apps have to be focused, super-quick interactions), there's another reason we haven't seen a lot of app, imo:

This year was an unusually crazy year for iOS developers. Apple released: - watchOS 1, with a slow and clunky experience - iOS 9, with adaptive multitasking - watchOS 2, requiring a rewrite of the watch app – tvOS, a whole new platform, with more easily translatable app experiences.

Additionally, with the "2-versions behind" strategy for Xcode, a lot of app developers (myself included) dropped iOS 7 support. This was actually one of the most complex transitions ever. (So many backwards incompatible changes (size classes, presentation controllers, push notifications).)

So something had to give. For me, and for many others, I'd say it was probably the watch.

Choose whatever works for you. Interface Builder can save you so much time building some of the smaller aspects of your app (help/about screens) etc. that it's foolish in my opinion to just "do away" with IB on principle.

Sure, if you have 1 storyboard for your entire app, and 9 people are working on it, you will have collisions. 9 people on an iOS project is bound to have merge conflicts in code too, unless it's coordinated.

Xcode 7's storyboard references should help avoid some conflicts here, as it breaks up a single, conflict-magnet file into several. Hell, you can organize them like XIB files before Apple started pushing the 1 storyboard "simple" approach to ease the learning curve.

Side note: The title of this post should have been "Reasons we are switching away from Interface Builder", as it doesn't actually answer the question. But then it wouldn't be interesting enough to click on.

This article is from July 8 (48 days ago). Anyone have any more recent information?

Forgive me for asking, but how is "no default timeout" a sensible default for any technology?

OP here. iOS 9's SFSafariViewController, unlike UIWebView or WKWebView, runs out-of-process and cannot be data-scraped. Beacause of this, SFSafariViewController shares cookies with Mobile Safari. The use-case here is essentially loading a special URL on the website that will take any logged in session and return back an oAuth token that the native app can use.

The communication method in the demo is as if you were talking indirectly with Mobile Safari, using a custom url protocol (e.g. fooapp://), or by using the new (safe) Universal links (apps can register specific domains/urls that will redirect back to the app, using their Associated Domains entitlements).