- By Edmond Lau
- Highly Recommended 👍
- http://www.theeffectiveengineer.com/
- They are the people who get things done. Effective Engineers produce results.
Principles of Adult Behavior
Picking the right architecture = Picking the right battles + Managing trade-offs
| #Newbie programmer | |
| def factorial(x): | |
| if x == 0: | |
| return 1 | |
| else: | |
| return x * factorial(x - 1) | |
| print factorial(6) | |
| #First year programmer, studied Pascal |
This tutorial was created by Shopify for internal purposes. We've created a public version of it since we think it's useful to anyone creating a GraphQL API.
It's based on lessons learned from creating and evolving production schemas at Shopify over almost 3 years. The tutorial has evolved and will continue to change in the future so nothing is set in stone.
| #include <stdio.h> | |
| #include <string.h> | |
| #include <stdlib.h> | |
| #include <unistd.h> | |
| #include <fcntl.h> | |
| #include <netinet/tcp.h> | |
| #include <sys/socket.h> | |
| #include <sys/types.h> | |
| #include <netinet/in.h> |
This is a post by Joel Spolsky. The original post is linked at the bottom.
This is such a common question here and elsewhere that I will attempt to write the world's most canonical answer to this question. Hopefully in the future when someone on answers.onstartups asks how to split up the ownership of their new company, you can simply point to this answer.
The most important principle: Fairness, and the perception of fairness, is much more valuable than owning a large stake. Almost everything that can go wrong in a startup will go wrong, and one of the biggest things that can go wrong is huge, angry, shouting matches between the founders as to who worked harder, who owns more, whose idea was it anyway, etc. That is why I would always rather split a new company 50-50 with a friend than insist on owning 60% because "it was my idea," or because "I was more experienced" or anything else. Why? Because if I split the company 60-40, the company is going to fail when we argue ourselves to death. And if you ju
| The question was asked why I (as a programmer who prefers dynamic languages) don't consider static types "worth it". Here | |
| is a short list of what I would need from a type system for it to be truely useful to me: | |
| 1) Full type inference. I would really prefer to be able to write: | |
| (defn concat-names [person] | |
| (assoc person :full-name (str (:first-name person) | |
| (:second-name person)))) | |
| And have the compiler know that whatever type required and produced from this function was acceptible as long as the |