Yup, when you get it wrong you get to meet interesting people from the compliance department. The "enable cache" button in the load balancers should come with alot of warnings.
I find it interesting to compare this compiled JS to the tiny recursive Ray Tracer previously posted here on HN [0]. This Scala->JS compilation is 214k characters while the tiny Ray Tracer is at <1k characters. It should be noted that the tiny Ray Tracer is heavily optimized and minified.
The source-code linked is only 279 lines of Scala code, including blanks and comments and the code is very readable [1]. However, it is using Scala's standard library, which is somewhere at 16.5 MB - 18.5 MB, depending on version. That the minified code is 209 KB (50 KB gzipped), I find that awesome, as it means that the compression / tree shaking done is pretty aggressive, much better than what people can do by hand. Under the hood Scala.js does optimizations of its own, before passing the result to Google's Closure compiler in advanced mode.
ScalaJS is still in its infancy, I wouldn't expect miracles at this point, particularly in terms of generated JS file size. Note the _experimental_ disclaimer in ScalaJS' home page: http://www.scala-js.org
Assume optimizations will come with time, for now it's pretty cool that one can work in a more or less completely type safe environment on both client and server with Scala.
p.s. muddling along with Coffeescript + GruntJS for the time being, but look forward to working in pure Scala once the library stabilizes.
Yeah this is a great effort that will have a really big upside for developers like me using Play! framework. It means I can define my transfer types in Scala and share them between client and server in a typesafe way. Currently that takes lots of testing to keep the javascript side honest in what it's sending.
I'm not sure Google is actively punishing this strategy but the text doesn't look good at all in the SERP. The title of the page is displayed as "Ｕｎｉｃｏｄｅ － Ｆｕｌｌｗｉｄｔｈ － Ｚｅｉｃｈｅｎ" [0]
This could turn ugly really fast. If Russia attacks Ukraine the US and Britain would have to protect the borders of Ukraine, according to a treaty signed in 1994 [0].
If the US don't follow the treaty I guess we will know how much these treatys really are worth.
They won't. What you expect, US going to war with a nuclear power over some territory in some third-rate country? The maximum you can expect is a couple of Obama speeches and Kerry promising an unbelievably small diplomatic effort to solve it.
So yes, all those treaties are worth something only when everybody wants to follow them, and they stop being worth paper on which they are printed as soon as one of the participants decides to break them. That's how it always worked.
It's not just "some territory": Russian natural gas --- one of the principle sources of Russian influence in Europe --- goes through Ukrainian pipelines.
And nothing in the Budapest Memorandum requires or even permits a signatory to defend Ukraine against another signatory or anyone else. Obviously the Ukrainian government would ask for help in such a case, but there is no current treaty obligation to provide it.
Complicating this is that Russia claims Yanukovich is still the legitimate leader of Ukraine and that their actions thus far have his blessing, meaning their troops are not attacking Ukraine but supporting it against an armed insurrection. Nobody outside Russia's circle of friends believes that, of course, but its the fig leaf they are using.
Sir Anthony Brenton (UK Ambassador to Russia 04-08): "If indeed this is a Russian invasion of Crimea and if we do conclude the [Budapest] Memorandum is legally binding then it’s very difficult to avoid the conclusion that we’re going to go to war with Russia."
Key emphasis on and if we do conclude the [Budapest] Memorandum is legally binding. That's a rather big if. But realistically, no one is going to care, because the west still isn't going to war with Russia over this.
Edit: Technically, if it wasn't approved by the US Senate, then its legally just scrap paper.
All sides have been saying a lot of shit that is not exactly true over the past week. Here is the full text of the memorandum: http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2014/2014_1-9/2014-08/.... Nothing in there provides an obligation to defend Ukraine from a third party.
Don't bother to back up you cliched attack on a popular tabloid newspaper. Much more fun to recycle the old epithets. What amuses me is that way hypercritical folk evidently read the Daily Mail (along with the other on a regular basis else how can they be so adamant concerning it's 'rag' characteristics? Seems to be a moveable feast on HN.
Independent reports say that the DM has the largest online readership in the world at around 44 million. Disputable of course; remarkable that so few of these people (if any) appear have made a buck or two by suing the paper for telling all the lies it's supposed to peddle.
Of course we read the Daily Mail occasionally. Well not the whole thing every day. That would be tantamount to bashing one's head on the ground until your intelligence quotient descends towards the dog and monkey end of the bell curve. I'm not suggesting any other rag is any better, just with a different agenda. News should be considered based on a number of sources.
With respect to circulation; 44 million affords more lawyers than you. The Mail has certainly attracted its fair share of libel cases over the years where n_lawyers > daily_mail_n_lawyers.
It's not fit for my children to do papier-mâché with for they might accidentally read some.
I have been working with, and implented, both Stripe and Paymill. I agree with the article that the only time you would go with Paymill is simply if Stripe is not yet available (and in those cases you are probably better off with a local competitor).
Paymill is just a bad copy of Stripe in regards of technology, customer support, processes etc. One example of this is the ID verification process. Stripe has this automated and it takes minutes to complete. With Paymill we had to send copies of several different ID documents to different people and the process took weeks.
In our case Paymill approval process was indeed long (2 months?), but the ID verification part was quick and painless. They did require the originals via mail, but it's really not a big deal. The hold-up was with the bank and Paymill fell short in giving any idea of the ETA. They replied quickly, but didn't say anything at all. In fact, 4 or 5 weeks into the approval process, it all looked so bleak that we gave up on Paymill and applied to Braintree. These guys were far more responsive and approved us in a matter of days, but then they also took several weeks to "finalize the setup", so in the end it was a wash between them.
That said, between Braintree and Paymill, BT is certainly playing a catch-up. For one, they just recently dropped minimum monthly fee and switched to simple per-transaction fee structure. Also, their integration requires more work on the backend and overall feels less transparent and "heavier" that Paymill's.
In retrospect, Paymill is not bad at all, but it is not dramatically better than others either. They are all about the same.
I've had a much higher conversion rate with PayPal, even though I love stripe. It's annoying, because it's hard to do add-on payments with PayPal. Stripe is basically a dream to work with. But, if you don't have PP, you should -- but then once you do, it torques your conversion numbers per platform because people just see the PayPal button and click it. Suddenly 90% of your sales are through PP. The fact is: no one wants to type in their CC numbers and all that nonsense. Convenience factor is huge.
It's not sensical to choose one or the other over which YOU like more. You're in business to increase profits. If that means a PayPal button, so be it.
It's worse than being long. It's kafkian hell. In our case, our Paymill onboarding support contact disappeared for three weeks, then misplaced the physical copies of the documents. Three months later, with the banking approval process still on square one, I gave up and went with PayPal + Reference Transactions.
Yes, multiple sites are supported - there's a single tree for all pages in the system, and any number of sites can be 'rooted' at different points in the tree. (Currently this is configured in Django's own admin interface, but we'll be moving this into the Wagtail interface proper.)
