Whilst I applaud the effort, I think there needs to be PCB layouts and the like before this can be considered open source. At the moment the source code is there, and probably enough resources to give you a jump start on building your own, not detailed enough to build your own.
It's like me calling a program open source and ownly making the roadmap/initial spec publicly available.
how do you get the labels back again? sometimes my browser or password manager fills in the wrong fields, and, once there's something in the fields, there's no labels.
Does anyone have any idea how well this works with corporate enviroments where the typical workstation is a clone of all the others behind the same (NAT'es) address?
2. There are a lot of "low quality" questions that could be answered by reading documentation (also see 1)
3. Most of the questions that apply to 1 & 2 have already been answered on StackOverflow.
4. It's overwhelmingly (US) English, so people who are not fluent pendants are down-voted.
5. The people who need the most help are those who are least suited to post, as they rarely give enough detail ([example][1] - where to start?), ask very generic questions ([how to build a website][2]), or ask questions that have been answered before
When StackOverflow started, I spent a great deal of time on it as it felt like a good way to help and share knowledge (or just show off). Nowadays, I'll vote when I find an answer (usually via Duck Duck Go), but [the last question I asked][3] is still unanswered (allowing Facebook to use this as a support forum is a joke).
I feel that it's become a victim of its own success, and is getting to the point where it's as bad as the sites it tried to replace.
> 2. There are a lot of "low quality" questions that could be answered by reading documentation (also see 1)
This is a problem that plagues virtually all discussion media. All new discussion systems that are focused on Q&A trend toward what can only be called a knowledge base.
What the citizens of these forums overlook is that the very design[^1] of these sites attracts individuals who are either unwilling or incapable of finding the answers on their own. Thus begins the vicious cycle toward user hostility that results in a closed community.
1 - Design as in structure and purpose, not design as in color, layout, etc
However, I think that sprinkling andro.eventer all over the place is a stumbling block to me - it's essentially a global variable.
I realise that you don't want to polute the objects too much, but why not just add bind and emit methods to the composed object? Either that or pass andro as a parameter to the mixin's setup method?
Also, the bind(this, "touch", function...) to me looks like you're binding to the "touch" event of "this". Is the closure tax really so high that you can't store "this", or use something like jQuery.proxy()?
Like I said, I think this approach has a lot of potential, and seems to fit quite naturally the eventful model that the DOM uses.
Yes, andro.eventer is there to avoid polluting the owner object. However, your idea of passing andro to the behaviour's setup() method is a great one. I'm going to give it a try.
The reason I require the behaviour to be passed to bind() is so that the passed function can be run with `this` set to the behaviour. I couldn't see another way to let bind know which behaviour should be bound to the event.
EMI is making some of its artists' content available via an API. Developers can work with the content in a sandbox environment and propose ideas for applications. If a proposal is taken forward, EMI will handle the tasks of clearing the necessary rights and marketing the application. Revenues will be shared between the developer, EMI, artists, The Echo Nest, music publishers and any other rights holders.
I read this as EMI want me to take the risk of developing an application, and then, if they think it's going to make money, they'll take it on and make money out of it. Sounds like they're trying to apply the same model to developers as they do to musicians.
Personally, feature-wise they're best of bread. IntelliJ is the best Java IDE I've ever used, and ReSharper makes Visual Studio brilliant.
That said, they aren't always the fastest, and don't do anything to dispel my hatred of Java UIs.
I used WebStorm to do node.js for a while, but haven't renewed my subscription as it didn't provide me much extra from vim. The jQuery/Web stuff I've done with WebStorm was pretty good though.
It's like me calling a program open source and ownly making the roadmap/initial spec publicly available.