If you plan on gaming, DON'T buy a laptop. This is solid advice. Gaming on laptops is a bad experience in general.

Just buy a decent laptop with great battery life & mobility properties and a PS3/4 or a cheap gaming PC for gaming.

It is solid advice. Unless you don't need to play the latest games.

I bought a MacBook Air a few months ago and found out that a lot of blockbuster games from a few years ago perform pretty well, as do a lot of the indie games (from Steam, for example). I even bought a wired xbox360 controller for some of these games (Mark of the Ninja, for one).

But then I haven't really done much gaming in the past few years, so there are/were tons of (older) games I haven't played yet (BioShock, Portal 2, Mark of the Ninja, Borderlands 2 etc.). And I also don't mind turning down some of the graphic effects.

Still, it's possible...

Steambox came a callin'. Remember that stream tech Valve wants to use works both ways, so you could stream games from your mid range Steambox to your notebook.

Oh that's cool. Didn't know about that.

This is definitely a good thing. Support the developers. It takes a lot of time and effort to build an app. Surely a single dollar (usually) is not too much to pay. Im' still surprised how cheap most apps are for my phone ;o

The price of some apps is ridiculous though. I'm not defending pirates but look how much Anki costs on the App Store whilst being free on Android.

That's the developer's choice. Pay the price on the tin, switch to Android where they've chosen to make it free, or find an alternative. The market will sort itself out if it's truly priced too high.

Anki is the most expensive app I've ever purchased, and it was worth every cent. Buying that app let me support the developer, the iOS app, the Mac app, and his syncing service.

When compared to $0.99 games it seems expensive, but let's be realistic. It's good quality software, and on a desktop it would be worth that price. The difference is that it's 100x more convenient on iOS since it's always with me.

Watch a youtube review or read a review on it. If possible, test it out on a friends phone?

In a perfect world Apple would allow a trial mode for apps which would enable all features for X hours or X uses. But that's just Apple. It'll never happen. I heard though that MS does something like this for its apps? Or is it only for games?

$25 seems pretty reasonable to me if it's the sort of thing you find useful. How is that "ridiculous"?

Relative to the Android price. It seems unfair for iOS users to pay for development of the platform across all platforms.

The problem on Android is that a lot of countries still don't support payments for apps. In other words, on android you still can't use paid apps. You're limited to the free apps. That's one point where Apple really shines thanks to their already existing infrastructure for iTunes. I also think that's one of the reasons why devs flocked to iOS development in the first place. Millions of active accounts with valid creditcards attached to it is a tempting thing :p

Funny how people get up in arms about price differences like this, yet nobody ever suggests that the price of the cheaper one should be raised to remedy the situation.

Would the iOS price suddenly not be "ridiculous" if they charged $25 for the Android version too?

No, but why not go halfway? Lower the iOS price to half and raise the Android price to the same as iOS.

Why go halfway? $25 seems like a decent price for this.

I think he's saying Java is recreating what C made.I don't agree since Java allows writing of code at a higher level. (with a garbage collector etc)

Every programming language sort of recreates the basics. They are the basics after all. The neat programming languages/frameworks are the ones that 'reinvent' something. Do something in a completely new way. On a programminglanguage-level it's difficult. A lot of the practices were already invented in early languages like lisp, eifel & smalltalk.

I like Ruby because it's not ashamed of taking the great parts from other programming languages and putting it together in an easily understandable language.

Nope, i'm saying is that the more you abstract and take out of the way of the coder, the quicker they can write code. Java did this to C type languages, and people got quicker. Ruby and python did this to Java. But the inverse im often told by my C colleagues is that the abstraction means you fundamentally lose control of performance. I don't agree with this statement, but what I do agree with is that if you want high level, human oriented lprogramming languages that you can quickly write code in, you need to solve very similar problems

That was a talk from 7 years ago. Wikipedia experienced explosive growth at around that time, and the WMF (the organisation you donate to) have expanded their remit since then.

Back then the site also went down in a stiff breeze.

It's 2012 and "I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that."

I also feel they focus a lot of attention on subscribing and channels. It's now easier to see new content from a channel you love.

Yes. Except for okcupid. They pleaded with me via an ad of theirs (which was locally so it wasn't flagged by adblock) telling me that they rely on ads for income. They also said that I coud just pay 5 or 10$ and pay for my use for life. Which was a pretty cool thing to do :)

Ads should be quality checked by the site's owners. A crappy ad can turn away a visitor. At least I don't run the risk of that.

It's not their lack of innovation. It's their lack of supporting older devices and locking everything down.

The app ecosystem provides the innovation and that's the only reason why I'm still considering an iPhone for my next purchase.

Actually there is a framework: https://github.com/JoshCheek/deject

Have't tested it yet but it makes a lot of sense.

Redefining a class isn't dependency injection it's a hack to get the compiler to stop complaining. It works but it's very unclear to the person reading the program that a class your code depends on was actually redefined somewhere else.

For testing purposes placing this mock class somewhere at the start of your code is clear but only ever practical in that scenario.

I can also imagine that some programmers might not even think of the possibility that some code they depend on was overridden somewhere else.

In real maintainable code where you want to swap out behaviours it's nice if there was a special way of defining your dependencies. This is the same for all languages.

Deject offers a way so you don't have to fiddle with constructors but instead you have handles in your classes that you can override with different behavior if needed.

TL;DR: Yes, Ruby is powerful and you technically don't need IoC containers. But to make it maintainable for everyone it's a good idea to do so anyway.