chriszf

I don't like the term webapp, because it diminishes the nature of the work. When I say programming, I mean writing database-backed multi-user network applications with a web interface. So yes, a webapp, but there's more to it than that.

Anyway, I have the opportunity to set up a learning environment to teach a bunch of bright, aspiring developers everything I know about my craft in a very short time, and I've reached the point where I have to choose the machines I'm going to use. Now, because I'm crotchety and apparently just stepped out of a time capsule, I want to teach debian-flavored linux: that's what I develop in and deploy to.

On the other hand, a colleague of mine extols the virtues of OSX and indeed, I can't deny the increasing ubiquity of macs in the silicon valley. He's pushing heavily for a mac environment and makes good points in favor of it. I even carry a macbook air when I don't feel like burdening my shoulders with my usual laptop, so I can't argue too much against it.

Now, without devolving into a "mac is better than XYZ" discussion, my question to HN is this: does it make sense to teach new developers linux directly as part of their education, or should I let them accrete knowledge of deploy environments and system configuration over time?

I'm trying to do something involving a web service that's only offered via SOAP (naturally, it's a microsoft technology: Mappoint). I remember hearing a lot of hype about interoperability and web services and remote whatever and integration way back when. But now, as I'm working on this thing, I find that Java support for SOAP is questionable at best, and poorly documented to boot. Python's support has a passable interface, hiding all the setup with its powerful metaprogramming facilities. Now, if only it worked correctly. I couldn't even bring myself to look at Ruby support. Naturally, C# and VB.net support SOAP almost natively. So how about it folks? Is this another technology resigned to the rogues gallery?

Why is it that all webapps have to be 'fun' or 'social' applications these days? I wrote some software (as a webapp) that I think is pretty useful, but has only the barest and most rudimentary social networking features. I showed it to a co-worker whose first response was "cool". His second response, a few days later was, "I'm going to build a copy of your program, only I'm going to make it focus on the social and sharing aspect. I hope you don't mind."

Now, on one hand, I'm not really offended, since my app is just a clone of an existing (but unavailable to me) app. On the other hand, I'm pretty offended that to this guy, software isn't good unless you can socialize through it. I'll admit that there is a natural social aspect that comes out of the idea, but whatever happened to solitary software that just helps you be productive and organized? Why the heck isn't there a simple web-based address book out there? That said, I applaud mint.com and their decidedly non-social approach to webapps.

I wrote some software. Now, I want to make it explicit that it's not meant to be a startup. I wrote some program to serve my needs, and it's coincidence that it's in webapp form.

Still, some people expressed interest in using it so I made it multiuser. And somehow, word got out and now I have a very small number of users (much bigger than my initial plan of 1, though).

Now, someone's contacted me with interest about blogging about it/advertising for me. On one hand, I think that's neat. If people like it, that's cool. On the other hand, while the core functionality that I wanted is pretty robust, I have some really flimsy 'social network' aspects tacked on at the request of some people, and I don't think it's ready to actually be used, and heck, I'm a little embarrassed by it. That said, would you actively turn down press because you think you're not ready?