- In Accounts is Everything Meteor Does Right, Pete Corey points out that Meteor‘s Accounts package dictates how user authentication and authorization will work, period, and that this removal of choice actually makes it entirely usable. Having wrestled with Shiro and Crowd and Spring Security and JAAS, it’s a point that’s hard to argue with – and while users of Shiro, etc., will probably say that those packages work as well as Accounts does, I’d have to humbly disagree, even while acknowledging how nice it is to have things like Shiro and Crowd. It’d be nice to have something that was just as drop-in for Java was Accounts is for Meteor. (Meteor is, BTW, a reactive application framework for NodeJS.)
- User jdlee posted Maslow’s hierarchy of dev needs from Twitter – One gets the impression that the developer’s needs weren’t being met when designing that graph.
- User adimit gave high praise to Growing Object-Oriented Software Guided by Tests, saying that “it’s really simple but helping me write a test-driven app right now” and (coming from a Haskell background) “I’ve always hated OOP, but now I see how to do it properly, and it can be fun.” Anything that helps code quality improve is awesome, if you ask me.
- From DZone: The Rise and Fall of Scala describes the apparent slow demise of Scala. The author backs it up, and it’s not a bad article; Scala’s awesome (I love it) but the criticisms are quite valid. Two areas where the author sees Scala remaining strong: Big Data and custom DSLs, definitely two Scala strengths.
Articles on javachannel.org are going to start using Odersky’s “Scala Levels” as tags for new content (with old content being rated as they get maintained over time, possibly).
The levels are in two groups: A1, A2, A3, and L1, L2, and L3. The “A” stands for “application;” the “L” stands for “library.” Put simply, the features that tend to be found in applications and libraries are different; an application can prefer concrete types, whereas a library tends not to (if able); the skills and knowledge for writing applications or libraries are different.
An A1 programmer is a beginner at Java; an L3 programmer is expected to really know the language and its features well.
The skills are grouped like: A1, A2/L1, A3/L2, L3. The idea being expressed here is that before you should design a library, you need to be moderately skilled at Java – a beginner shouldn’t bother worrying about expressing ideas in a library.
Odersky actually grouped concepts for Scala in each level (for which he’s gotten some scathing criticism from Tony Morris, for example); eventually, I’d like to have the same kind of groupings for Java, if only to establish a baseline (which is what Odersky was doing, and what Morris apparently missed, in his quest for overreaction. Tony’s a brilliant guy, but like so many other brilliant people in this field, he’s desperate to find points of contention, and then wring them dry. Astute readers might note that Tony’s critique has no way through which to offer commentary…)
So: What you’ll start seeing is tips on javachannel.org being grouped by these levels by tags; the higher the level, the more complex the content is.