Do you know enough about the Python ecosystem to make that assessment? Aaron Swartz's web.py was around as a single-file web micro-framework years before Sinatra even existed. An early version of reddit, after they switched from Common Lisp to Python, was built starting with web.py.
I know that web.py was around years before Sinatra. But URL routing in Bottle is more similar to Sinatra than it is to the URL dispatching via a tuple at the top of a file. Even so, perhaps Bottle is influenced more by web.py. That doesn't mean there aren't a ton of ports of Sinatra (like Express for node.js, Scalatra) or those influence by Sinatra like itty (http://toastdriven.com/blog/2009/mar/07/itty-sinatra-inspire...) or even perhaps Flask.
I even noticed a comment above that said Bottle looks just like Itty. Yet because I brought up the Ruby framework that Itty is essentially a port of, I'm getting down-voted like crazy. I will never understand why Python people dislike Ruby so much, and vice versa.
> But URL routing in Bottle is more similar to Sinatra than it is to the URL dispatching via a tuple at the top of a file.
Decorators, a Python 2.5 feature, weren't around when web.py was first released, so they couldn't have been used initially. Even after Python 2.5 came out, it took some time for decorators to be widely embraced. But routing and other kinds of dispatching (e.g. adapters and multimethods) are an obvious and indeed commonplace use of them.
I didn't down-vote you. I did get ever so slightly annoyed with your implication that Sinatra was the first to do this kind of thing and therefore necessarily a source of influence. Neither half of this claim is correct. Sinatra wasn't the first. Even if it were, it need not have been an influence; I wouldn't claim that web.py had to have influenced Sinatra just because it preceded it.
Werkzeug, the library which provides the routes, predates Sinatra by at least a year (2007 compared to 2008 for Sinatra) and might be even older; it predates the SVN->git switch for Pocoo.
Python people don't dislike Ruby, they dislike the Ruby community's habit of assuming that Ruby somehow did it first and did it better. :3
It absolutely was not "a bunch of chatter about his depression". It was much more. As small sample from the excellent piece by Glen Greenwald at Salon (1):
MANNING: uhm, trying to keep a low profile for now though, just a warning
LAMO: I'm a journalist and a minister. You can pick either, and treat this as a confession or an interview (never to be published) & enjoy a modicum of legal protection.
It is clear from this passage that Lamo promised legal protection of a journalist-source or priest-penitent relationship. And it shows Poulsen's claim that the withheld chat logs were only insignificant ramblings related to Manning's mental state was simply not true.
It doesn't matter one whit whether Lamo offered protection or not, except insofar as what you think of Lamo.
The shield law doesn't require journalists to keep info private -- it simply allows a reporter to quash a subpoena from law enforcement coming knocking for the info.
If indeed Manning had taken Lamo up on the offer, at best, Manning has a civil case against Lamo.
And as for Lamo being a minister, that's a joke. Knowing Lamo he's got a minister certificate he bought for $25 just to say he has it. Furthermore, Manning didn't take him up on the offer and the chats certainly don't look like a minister and a worshipper talking.
While it's clear Lamo is double-crossing Manning and trying to suck info out of him, this bit of the chat logs don't mean anything substantively.
But folks like Greenwald need a nemesis, so any point to beat on Wired.com for reporting the story will work.
Full disclosure: I work for Wired.com and Kevin Poulsen used to be my editor, and still occasionally is. I never saw the logs till they were pubbed and had no hand in the decision.
You wrote: "But folks like Greenwald need a nemesis, so any point to beat on Wired.com for reporting the story will work."
Greenwald doesn't need to go far to find a "nemesis" in this case. And he is not "beating" on Wired for reporting the story, but for reporting only those portions that it deemed relevant. The fact is Poulsen, for whatever reason, was not truthful in his claim that the unreleased chat logs were only Manning's personal meanderings or that they would reveal national security secrets. Whether someone at the DOJ put pressure on Wired not to release the full chat logs, we will never know. But to say that the full logs are not relevant to Manning's defense or Assange's role in all of this, is absurd.
What came out in the logs isn't relevant to Manning's defense, insofar that the logs are in the hands of the prosecution and so would be given to Manning's lawyer, irregardless.
The same goes for Assange. And nothing in the logs rules out that Assange "ran" Manning nor do they prove it. All they have is Manning saying Assange is good at OPSEC. So Assange may not know WHO Manning is, but still may have directed Manning to get more info or look for this or that. That's the presumed essence of the grand jury proceedings.
Nothing in the logs changes any of that, nor would the publication require the gov attorneys to show exculpatory evidence to a grand jury. A grand jury is a one-sided proceeding intended to convince a group of people that someone likely committed a crime.
Lamo promising "immunity" to Manning on journalistic or religious grounds? Meaningless, except for your opinion of Lamo, which I assume was pretty damn low even before you saw the full logs.
This is all sound and fury, when the real truth is simple as can be. Manning chose the worst person in the world to confide in.
I dunno dood. The parts about manning coming to terms with being trans, coupled with his stories about his dad chasing him out of the house with a shotgun seem kinda personal to me.
Greenwald's a douche. These logs are super personal, not super relevant. All this has taught us is that Lamo is a fucking asshole.
I prefer Learning Python by Mark Lutz. I've read a ton of programming books, and I can't recall one the didn't recommend typing the exercises by hand, reading the code carefully line-by-line to understand exactly what is going on. Few quality language books say "go ahead and copy and paste the code from the books website, and don't worry about what the code is actually doing."
While definitely not small, the stairway book, "Programming in Scala" by Odersky, mentioned in the article, is an excellent tutorial style book. The second edition was just released in January.
I guess he felt that others besides the troll were having a laugh at his expense, (i.e., the HN Tips guys comments, other penis-oriented repos connected to employees of aforementioned companies) and were, if only indirectly, in on the joke.
Yep, that's what people seem to gloss over when they think I just overreacted. I knew for a fact that several Ruby people considered this hilarious, and that one or more of them worked at github. In that situation, it's either I leave silently (which everyone thinks I should have done), or bring the issue up and make sure everyone knows what's going on. I prefer the latter because it at least lets others come behind me and avoid the problem.
Thankfully, they've fixed the problem now and I don't have to worry about it anymore.
You and others which may have been trolled before and did not "make a fuss". I see many here with a bully mentality, saying that one should just keep their head down and endure the trolls crap and they will go away. Except they won't.
> Supporting only github means I can't use it. Unfortunate, because their stuff looks cool.
I'm sure if you really wanted to use Pagoda, you could use the http://hg-git.github.com/. Or you could just sign up for a free Github account (free seems to be a requirement for you, and these days with the state of the economy I can definitely relate. although no free and private as you mentioned) and learn git, which is a joy to use, and blazingly fast, which is nice for cloning large repos.
Personally, I use Heroku and prefer Ruby to PHP so I don't feel compelled to try Pagoda, but I could appreciate the work that went into the site, and the backend. Impressive.
I am well familiar with git--I have been subjected to dealing with it on many unpleasant occasions. Git is as far from a joy to use as anything I can think of. A rather large number of scripts and other tools I've developed depend on hg out of convenience, and I have no interest in porting them to a tool that is not better for my use case where it is superior and considerably worse where it is inferior. As far as I'm concerned, git is a piece of software good in its niche--a niche that happens to be kernel development, not web-development-because-some-Ruby-people-thought-it-was-trendy--made popular via cargo-culting and it offers me nothing that Mercurial doesn't. Well, I should say that it offers nothing aside from needless complexity, substandard tools on Windows, and and poor user interface design. If Pagoda (or anyone else, for that matter) is going to perpetuate the cargo cult, I am going to decline to use it.
I can afford a Github subscription. It's not that much money. It's just completely worthless to me.
He is obviously not particularly thrilled with getting divorced and having to move from a city that he is fond of, to a smaller, less interesting location, so I think we can cut him some slack. This subject didn't seem to require that he write in the style of John Updike, after all.
I had a feeling it was some inside joke. Not sure about expressions like these. If you're not familiar with the reference, it just looks like incorrect grammar or a typo.
I do like the trend of having apps that can launch from the menu bar like Alfred, Dropbox, Growl.
I've used your rails3_devise_wizard to get-up-and-running on a recent project, and to experiment with difference stacks and it is really useful. Projects like yours and http://railswizard.org are really useful for customizing the default Rails3 stack and customizing a customization of a given stack. Thank you.
> I'd be surprised if anyone that has built a few significant rails applications with devise would continue to use it. Unless you're going to have the most vanilla session/user/authentication management ever, fighting against devise gets downright nasty.
Authentication can get downright nasty no matter which solution you use, but Devise does a lot of things well, is actively maintained, and well documented. In fact all of the gems from Jose Valim, including inherited_resources and simple_forms are such first rate plugins, it's difficult to imagine anyone throwing any of his work under the bus.
