|
|
Saturday, October 16th, 2010
| |
5:28 pm - Geocaching Wank - I NEVER THOUGHT I WOULD SEE IT
|
sisterelwood
|
When I saw this on ![[info]](http://www.journalfen.net/img/community.gif) wank_report my little heart just burst. This may have happened before but I've never seen it and I've certainly never reported on it. Hang on, kids - it's time to go on a treasure hunt! Much thanks goes to the mousey who originally reported this. I use the mouse's report and supplement it where I think necessary with my own words. Enjoy!
( explanations of geocaching )
Just-do-Somethin', a suspected sockpuppet account over on geocaching.com, lists a new cache hide that no-one can find. The comments go from curious to angered to enraged as cache seekers come up empty-handed and the cache owner refuses to change anything. Suspected sock-puppets show up to defend the cache owner and you can all guess how well that turns out.
And then a "found" log is posted on Thursday. It is at this point that all hell breaks loose leading some to believe that maybe a second cache has been placed at the coordinates instead. But before much else can be done the cache owner deletes the 'found' logs - it just keeps getting better.
The forums are abuzz with talk of this mystery and theories about what is going on. Some people are calling for the cache to be archived while others are calling them busybodies. And then, of course, we have the ever mature "you're just a crybaby" word slinging and comments on who is smarter - cachers from Illinois or cachers from New York.
Why, yes, those are all adults in the conversations - why do you ask?
Eventually the original hider shows up and is perfectly reasonable. Said owner posts pictures of the famed hide in an attempt to prove themselves. The final hoo-rah occurs though when the cache owner archives (meaning 'deactivates') the cache and flounces. Because that is what all innocent and truthful people do.
Wank continues on the forums and on the log page, as members try to out the sockpuppets and diagnose fake cache locations/cache placement timelines. Cachers from all over throw their two cents worth in and it just keeps going and going. There is even some white-knighting thrown in for good measure by Cach-N-Carry who doesn't seem to understand the concept of paragraphs -
http://forums.groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=261743&st=226#
In the end everyone looks like a wanker and 'GOF and Bacall' sums it up best-
Both sides of this argument are ridiculous. Can't find a cache and looking has stopped being fun? Ignore it and move on. And taking apart someones retaining wall to hide a needle in the haystack nano so that nobody can find it is not clever. It's vandalism.
FYI - geocaching.com is free and open to join but some of the user profiles cannot be viewed unless you are logged in. However, it is a public website. I've posted caps on here just for ease of access.
Explanations of Letters
DNF = did not find
TFTC = thanks for the cache
TNLN = took nothing, left nothing
CO = cache owner
FTF = first to find
EDIT: Just as a side-note - many cellphones now have apps available for geocaching so you don't have to spend the extra money on a separate GPS. Thanks ![[info]](http://www.journalfen.net/img/userinfo.gif) da_angel729 for reminding me of this. I know for certain that the iPhone has a geocaching application in case any of you have an iPhone and want to give geocaching a try.
current mood: *sporfle!*
|
|
(24 comments | comment on this)
|
| Tuesday, October 5th, 2010
| |
2:32 pm - Your Button Is Bad and You Should Feel Bad
|
|
| Saturday, September 18th, 2010
| |
12:28 pm - This feminist blog which depends on your donations is not here to educate you!
|
waltraute
|
Thanks to the anon at wank_report for the bulk of the writeup, with its singular virtues.
S.E. SMITH accuses Lady Gaga of appropriation:
It's been pointed out that she appropriates a lot of things from musical traditions created by people of colour and nonwhite people. That her work contains transmisogyny. That she appropriates the experiences of people with disabilities. These are all things that I don't think of as feminist acts—note that I am not saying that Lady Gaga is not feminist (because I don't think it's up to me to decide that), but rather that I am saying that her actions do not always mesh with the identity she has chosen to claim. The same could be said of many other people who identify as feminist, including myself, however. Let those in glass houses...
(bonus points for the excellent use of praeteritio here.)
A commenter asks for references and explanation. According to Snarky's Machine, late of the now-closed Shapely Prose, asking for sources is derailing and oppressive:
I can't be arsed to unpack and respond to your comment except to say you're trafficking in copious amounts of derailing for dummies. Your inability to "see" how Gaga misappropriates says everything about YOUR own privilege and inability to google "Grace Jones" and nothing else. If concepts are unfamiliar to you instead assuming the concepts themselves are wrong, you might want to hit up Professor Google. Because the argument, "you're wrong because I don't know what you're talking about." just does not cut it.
Comments defending that commenter get deleted (although some are reposted in the anon threads below). Mods claim to be "reviewing the situation" (i.e., pretending to do something about it). "Open thread" disappears after 20 minutes after irate commenters leave comments there. The current status is "please email the mods directly if you want to talk about comment policy", which couldn't possibly have a chilling effect--not at all.
Snarky's Machine has another reply to that initial commenter on Twitter:
Ha. I love how some weird ass creepy e-troll named whitney is stalking my feed and tattling cause I'm so mean. Who are these people.
People take refuge to complain in several threads in the sfd_anon community. (Which are now locked; possibly accessible if you're a member of the community.) Worth noting are the ones about how Bitch magazine aggressively solicits donations to support their journalism, which puts a special irony gloss on the "we're not here to educate you" rebuttal.
|
|
(213 comments | comment on this)
|
| Friday, September 17th, 2010
| |
12:47 pm - The revenge of Red Rose Publishing
|
jkefka
|
Previously, on OTF_wank...
Dear Author posts about Red Rose publishing, reproducing a report from Kat Holmes, a former RRP author, and the ridiculous response of the head of the publishing house. Wank ensues in the comments. In fact, more wank than was even included in the original post!
( Add one batshit teal deer and mix well )
Some additional background on RRP also emerged from the comments of the earlier report. It seems, in restrospect, that there were some warning signs about RRP. That absolute write thread has a lot of opinions one way or the other, but bottom line there were some flags up about RRP for a while, including one notable one from Piers Anthony (search for "Red Rose" on the page).
All well and good, but you didn't come here for a history lesson. No, this is for the new, juicy developments. How juicy? Empty legal threats juicy! A couple of choice quotes from the Dear Author post, made last Saturday:
On Friday, I received a phone call from a lawyer in Utica, New York who represents Red Rose Publishing. RRP is claiming that I defamed them in this post here wherein I summarized the reported complaints of RRP authors and posted the president and owner’s email regarding her displeasure with RRP authors. The lawyer wanted my address so he could send me some correspondence that “laypeople may call a cease and desist” letter. At the time of the phone call, I don’t believe the lawyer had read the post in question as he kept referring to “blog postings.” I urged him to read the post and explain to me where I had been defamatory. I reminded him that truth is always a defense to defamation.
I relayed to RRP’s attorney that I would not remove the post unless he could convince me I engaged in a legal wrong. As there is nothing defamatory in the post, I refused to take it down, gave my address, and told him I would await his correspondence.
I think this is what could be called in technical terms an "ice burn." A (former) RRP author makes an interesting comment on that entry about her Red Rose works suddenly vanishing from Amazon. Another, anonymous Red Rose author states that provides some info on the RRP NDA: The RRP NDA say that authors may not discuss RRP in a negative way on blogs, forums etc. It is pretty broad.
Yesterday, shit gets real, as Dear Author recieves an official-looking letter ...with no actual legal content to speak of.
( Text of the letter, and DA's succinct response )
The rest of the post is a point-by-point summary of exactly what was asserted in the DA post, and evidence supporting each statement. I won't bother copypasting the whole thing here, but it's worth reading if you like smart bloggers smacking down legal scare tactics.
Of course, a smackdown post is best accompanied by wanky comments, and we have a few wanky comments. Most of them are just written versions of the MJ popcorn GIF, but then we get this one comment by "Interested in Maintaining standards".
There’s something shifty here that no one seems to be catching. I find it hard to take any information seriously when writers or bloggers refuse to stand behind their real names. In journalism school a reporter’s name is his or her badge of honor.
Just saying…
Followed by at least a dozen smackdown comments. My favorite of the bunch is, quite simply: So what's your name?
So that's where things stand now. I'll be keeping an eye on DA and various other blogs to see where it goes from here (after Yom Kippur of course, l'shanah tovah to you all), but yeah, this could just be the beginning.
|
|
(55 comments | comment on this)
|
| Thursday, September 16th, 2010
| |
10:49 pm - Photography Wank!
|
|
| Tuesday, September 14th, 2010
| |
2:14 am - Academics Gone Wild...
|
major_fischer
|
Smallish wank mostly because I had to put some of this together from context without the benefit screencaps...
College Misery is a (largely) anonymous blog for college professors, university adjuncts, and graduate students to discuss their professional problems, complain about their administrators, colleagues, and most especially students. It is a successor blog to the recently closed blog Rate Your Students which was much more closely moderated and didn't allow comments.
As anyone who’s ever been stuck in a hotel with a couple hundred academics knows, it's the comments that are going to kill you.
( The Strange and Sordid Tale of a Women from Kalamazoo )
ETA: Fixed HTML
ETA the 2nd:
From the comments about the deleted kindle post...
Katie has written some mighty goofy shit in RYS and CM, but her post started out with, "I'm not ready to marry my Kindle, but I let it go to second base." And she expects to be taken seriously, for her mind? I glanced at her post this morning, but didn't have time to add a comment that made much sense, that being a challenge with a post like hers: I was thinking along the lines of, "Between the cats and the Kindle, Katie really ought to get out more," or maybe just echo Beaker Ben, "There is no need for us to be this intimately acquainted."
|
|
(23 comments | comment on this)
|
| Friday, September 3rd, 2010
| |
3:10 pm - As wanky as a red, red rose.
|
jkefka
|
Publishing wank, fresh and delicious! Get yer publishing wank, get it while it's long and sticky!
(this wank courtesy of wank_report)
It starts on Dear Author, with a post about one Red Rose Publishing. Kat Holmes, an author I have no particular knowledge of, finally got out of an NDA and posted a blog about her experiences with the publishing house. The DA summary includes books being published either too early or too late without the authors being told and breaches of contract that, when the author asks for the rights to be reverted, are answered with bills for cover art and editing services, and notices from cover artists and editors quitting are ignored. Part of the horror story from Kat's blog is reproduced, go over and read it if you want a nice, healthy dose of paranoia about picking publishers.
In any case, the founder of Red Rose responds, in a totally, utterly, completely professional and sane manner.
( What I just said is a flagrant lie )
And on, and on, and on. But that's only half this beautiful piece of work.
( To the comments! )
It's a long one, but there's a lot of glorious batshit pagentry on display. Sprinkled throughout are anonymous authors, editors, and others chiming in with their experiences with RRP, most of which are distinctly negative. This is a wank I highly encourage clicking through, because there's way more that I just couldn't include.
And here come the ETAs: Writers Beware just picked it up. Courtesy of sistercoyote
ETA the second: Red Rose threatens to sue Dear Author! This could be interesting, and by "interesting" I mean "hilarious". Thanks rainkatt!
|
|
(84 comments | comment on this)
|
| Wednesday, August 25th, 2010
| |
2:09 pm - Vintage book wank exclamation mark
|
cheryl_bites
|
(Apologies for the age of this wank [2007] and the shortage of fights, but the strangeness mostly makes up for it.)
Once there was a man called Nathan Carnes. Nathan really liked exclamation marks and the word “whom”, and he wrote a book called Space Ark! so that he could use both frequently. He also liked rainbows and the Copperplate font, so he created a website to promote his opus, and found a vanity publisher who was prepared to realise his dream of the world’s most amateurish cover.
( The writing was bad. Really, really bad. )
But, of course, if he’d just stopped there, it wouldn’t be a wank. What’s more, he was getting restless. During its 15 years (!) of vanity publication, the book had managed to sell only 2,700 copies (er, he says). Accordingly, Nathan sent what I assume was intended to be a query letter to literary agent Miss Snark [blog is archival], and, further, promised to let her see sample pages for the low, low price of $35!
( As you can probably guess from Miss Snark’s name, this was not a wise move. )
Regrettably, I’ve been unable to find any more of Nathan’s public utterances. I am disappointed about this because I’m pretty sure every one of them is gold. Oh, well; I shall take comfort from his “reviews”, which feature an ENT specialist, one of the agents condemned by Preditors and Editors and someone who says, “Your vocabulary is one of the richest I have encountered. Wow!” (Hint: there are times when that’s not a good thing.)
|
|
(157 comments | comment on this)
|
| Wednesday, August 18th, 2010
| |
12:25 am - Mensans v Non-Mensans
|
|
| Friday, August 13th, 2010
| |
2:06 am - Librarian Wank
|
tehrin
|
As we know from Harry Potter, children's books are serious business.
Dougal the Garbage Dump Bear is an award-winning Australian children’s book about the adventures of a teddy bear who gets "drunk" on ginger beer. A librarian submits the book to Awful Library Books because the bear falls asleep on a couch and "no one needs to sleep off a soda!" so it was weeded from the library she works at for fear of offending conservative parents despite having received no complaints, taking the book home for herself for her own collection.
( If you give a bear a drink, he will bring the wank )
|
|
(99 comments | comment on this)
|
| Sunday, August 1st, 2010
| |
6:02 pm - Aromaleigh drowns under wank
|
sarracenia
|
It probably says something about a company when I see them going out of business and my immediate reaction is to make popcorn and look for wank. Some of you might remember Aromaleigh from the last makeup wank. For those of you who don't, they're a small mineral cosmetics company whose founder, Miss K, was known to frequently be involved in wank, including:
-Founded Mineral Makeup Mutiny, a website founded to stop people from just repackaging wholesale minerals at giant markup, shortly after she got caught doing just that and had to discontinue a rather large line of eyeshadow.( Cut to spare your flists )
|
|
(48 comments | comment on this)
|
| Wednesday, July 21st, 2010
| |
9:17 am - A tiny, weeny WTF_Nature wank...
|
napalmnacey
|
I was unsure whether to post this here or iwank, but I posted twice, once to LOL and once to say, "Dude, you're being really annoying", so I figure it might go better here. Right.
WTF_Nature is a super fun community on LJ devoted to the crazy shit nature comes up with. Freak storms. Animals we didn't know existed. Animals that do exist but mutate. If it's in nature, and it makes you go "WTF", it's in the comm.
Yesterday, writerspleasure decided to post about a species of goby in South African waters that has turned on its natural predator, the jellyfish, and made those squishy suckers into their dinner. A really interesting subject, full of fascinating ramifications for the local ecosystem in that area. For some reason, he brought in an Ayn Rand reference.
markslj is tired of this political bullshit.
Wank is soon in the waters once the first blood is shed.
pazi_ashfeather makes a comment on writerspleasure's behaviour.
Thing degenerate and get mighty personal after that, all while the both of them argue about Ayn Rand. I don't know why, but people arguing about Ayn Rand always makes me laugh.
So anyway, one minute you think it's over, but those crazy kids start up the argument again in another thread. Are the Bearded Gobys Libertarians or Bolsheviks? A question for the ages!
Ahhh... Ayn Rand. *chuckle* Tiny, to be sure, but like the Bearded Goby, kind of cute as well.
|
|
(165 comments | comment on this)
|
| Wednesday, July 7th, 2010
| |
6:41 pm - AP vs. WOOt!; or platedlizard owes $100 to various blogs
|
platedlizard
|
Recently the CEO of WOOt! sent out what has to be the funniest 'We were purchased by Amazon' letter ever. Bloggers the world over quote from it extensively, and it was eventually picked up by the Associated Press. No big deal, right?
Well, there's a little problem. You see, the AP has started asking bloggers to pay them for taking quotes from their articles. This, needless to say, is not exactly popular in the bloggosphere. So of course WOOt! decided to poke a little fun at them.
The AP, we can’t thank you enough for looking our way. You see, when we showed off our good news on Wednesday afternoon, we expected we’d get a little bit of attention. But when we found your little newsy thing you do, we couldn’t help but notice something important. And that something is this: you printed our web content in your article! The web content that came from our blog! Why, isn’t that the very thing you’ve previously told nu-media bloggers they’re not supposed to do?
So, The AP, here we are. Just to be fair about this, we’ve used your very own pricing scheme to calculate how much you owe us. By looking through the link above, and comparing your post with our original letter, we’ve figured you owe us roughly $17.50 for the content you borrowed from our blog post, which, by the way, we worked very very hard to create. But, hey. We’re all friends here. And invoicing is such a hassle in today’s paperless society, are we right? How about this: instead of cutting us a check for the web content you liberated from our site, all you’ll need to do is show us your email receipt from today’s two pack of Sennheiser MX400 In-Ear Headphones, and we’ll call it even.
Now that's all bit of good fun, right? Anyone can see that it's a joke. Except maybe the AP.
This morning, Paul Colford, the Director of Media Relations for the AP sent emails to both me and Woot CEO Matt Rutledge. Here’s what we got:
MG Siegler:
Surely you’ll also want your readers to know that The Associated Press INTERVIEWED Mr. Rutledge, as this version of the “newsy little thing” you cite makes clear: http://bit.ly/cl8JlX
Meanwhile, AP staffers across the Gulf region and in Washington continue to provide comprehensive coverage of the oil spill.
You’ll find highlights of that coverage here: http://www.ap.org/oil_spill/
Cheers,
Paul Colford
That's right folks, he pulled the oil spill card. When asked for clarification Colford responded:
Root of this non-”story” ($17.50 for quotes) is 2 yrs old, as AP noted again in 2009: http://bit.ly/9ehJGZ
Thanks.
ORLY?
On final note, I am really not kidding about owing $100 for all the quotes according to the AP. See for yourself.
Edit: I apologize to the moderators for the attempted double post. My computer hit a pothole on the information superhighway.
|
|
(28 comments | comment on this)
|
| Thursday, July 1st, 2010
| |
6:30 pm - The government wants YOU to join in the great wankathon.
|
grapefruitzzz
|
The British government have just set up a website to enable people to discuss unnecessary laws they can get rid of because they think the last government made too many.
http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/
We're working to create a more open and less intrusive society through our Programme for Government. We want to restore Britain’s traditions of freedom and fairness, and free our society of unnecessary laws and regulations – both for individuals and businesses.
This site gives you the chance to submit, comment on, or vote for ideas about how we can do this. Your ideas will inform government policy and some of your proposals could end up making it into bills we bring before Parliament to change the law.
It has only been online for a day and has already turned into a giant wankfarm. They've already had to suspend new login creation because of servers being robust.
http://twitter.com/HMGwebstatus
Today the #yourfreedom site has had 1,600 users active per second at peak points.
So why not drop by and wank about drugs, smoking, hanging, dangerous dogs, parking fines or anything else you could possibly imagine?
|
|
(38 comments | comment on this)
|
| Saturday, May 22nd, 2010
| |
3:17 pm - flamewars, executive-style
|
galateus
|
Those assholes at Viacom are calling Google assholes. LOLZ at 11.
From the article:
- Viacom quotes YouTube employee Maryrose Dunton telling an engineer to "'forget about the email alerts stuff' precisely because 'I hate making it easier for these a-holes' - referring to copyright owners - and 'we’re just trying to cover our asses so we don’t get sued.'"
-
Viacom complains that YouTube employees "sneered at rights holders as 'copyright bastards' and 'a-holes.'"
- Google retorts that Viacom can't complain about this language, and it quotes numerous Viacom execs to make its point. Sample outbursts include, "fuck you, you Google bastards," "bastards at Google are harassing me," and the eloquent "fuck those mother fuckers."
- A Viacom VP even complained about the "fucking assholes" at YouTube—because the company "enforced its repeat-infringer policy concerning a Viacom marketing account that had received multiple take-down notices from Viacom's legal department." The lulz, they are here in spades.
- Viacom top brass wrote e-mails with more exclamation points than my niece would even consider decent. They also had what Google calls an "obsession" with buying YouTube.
- Case in point: "I WANT TO OWN YOUTUBE. I think it's critical, and if it goes to a competitor.....!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" That was from MTV Networks head Judy McGrath.
- Viacom CEO Tom Freston wrote, "If we get UTube… I wanna run it." McGrath responded, "You'll have to kill me to get to it first."
|
|
(51 comments | comment on this)
|
| Thursday, May 20th, 2010
| |
1:36 pm - If you like hot showers, YOU ARE A SNIVELING, WEAK WASTE OF SPACE
|
tetradecimal
|
Jeffrey Wells is here to tell you that if you take showers that last more than three minutes, you might as well be a drug-addled addict hiding away and shivering in a cave somewhere, wishing only for sweet, sweet death the comforting warmth of your mother's womb.
"I was reminding myself this morning that it's a sign of weak character to take long showers. Anyone who does this is a soft sister -- a person looking to hide inside the warm amniotic fluid of his mother's womb, which is what a nice hot shower feels like. This realization goes back to when I was in my early 20s. If I happened to notice that a roommate or some guy or girl who was staying over was taking ten- or twelve-minute showers (or worse), I would instantly write them off.
Those who take extra-long hot showers are the same people who take extra-long breaks or lunches in order to get away from office drudgery, or who hide away inside an alcoholic or nicotine or drug cave. Your average enterprising, disciplined, hard-working types take four- or five-minute showers, at the longest. If you're really hard-core you've finished in less than three. No exceptions, no excuses -- either you get it or you don't."
ETA: Oh yeah, unrelated but relevant link.
|
|
(323 comments | comment on this)
|
| Friday, May 14th, 2010
| |
6:01 pm - Yes, they actually use the phrase "Mean Girls"
|
|
| Monday, March 29th, 2010
| |
9:37 pm - Seattle's delicate tastebuds
|
|
| Tuesday, March 16th, 2010
| |
7:08 pm - In France they call it a Royale with Wank....
|
theelusiven
|
An afternoon snack in miniwank form from customers_suck, courtesy of a mousie from wank_report , from whom the writeup is copypasta'd because journalfen ate the writeup I was working on. There's pedantry here to rival the Buttercream wank from awhile back. Thanks, mousie!
Over at Customers_Suck, haine_otomiya86 posts about a particularly irate customer who - among other things - was unclear about whether he needed a "McDouble," which costs $1.00, and a "Double Cheese Burger," which costs $1.19. The story goes on to describe how the poster had to double check which one the customer actually wanted, as well as a quick mention as to what the difference between these two sandwiches are. Answer: the $1.00 one contains two patties and one slice of cheese, and the $1.19 contains two patties and two slices of cheese.
However, for one magickcat, bothering a customer for clarification is apparently unacceptable.
Okay, seriously?
The customer was a jackass, I will give you that.
HOWEVER, your fussiness here about the McDouble/Double Cheeseburger thing is beyond ridiculous.
I don't mean in dealing with this guy- you did the best you could with an idiot like that, but for YEARS there was a dollar menu double cheeseburger.
Just because they took out one slice of cheese last year and decided to call it a "McDouble" doesn't mean that you shouldn't know what the heck someone is talking about when they specifty the "dollar menu double cheeseburger" which is EXACTLY WHAT A MCDOUBLE IS. There is a bun, there are two burgers, and there is cheese. I don't care how much you charge for it, its a freaking double cheeseburger. When someone specifies the "dollar menu double cheeseburger", if you don't know what they are talking about, well.... yeah.
As the thread unfolds, the reason for such an outburst is soon explained... magickcat is in fact a Cheeseburger Master!
I understand the math of the cheese, I really do.
What I am saying in that it is still a double cheeseburger, because it is...get this... two burgers.. WITH CHEESE.
I don't eat at fast food restaurants, as a general rule, and we don't have In & Outs here, so your reference means nothing to me. It certainly isn't rocket science. I know a few rocket scientists, and they know that a sandwich with 2 burgers and cheese is a double cheeseburger. ;)
"I understand the math of the cheese" may be my new favorite phrase.
Cue rabid dogpiling and unsuccessful attempts to reason with Earth Logic and first grade math. Unfortunately it is all for naught as even magickcat does not seem to know what exactly the point of the argument is. Depending on which thread you visit, it waffles from "they're both cheeseburgers; it's all the same" "Oh, you misunderstood: I wasn't talking about this customer at all, only a theoretical situation where everything was described perfectly," to the cost difference is all a conspiracy by McDonalds":
NO, it costs more because McDonalds saw a way to make more money by adding another burger. They are all "meat"burgers, if you can legally call whatever they put in those things "meat"... I know damn well what is in each one because it was in the news and whatnot about what the change would be. My case is correct, and it stands.
And the arguments just keep coming...
current mood: *sporfle!*
|
|
(46 comments | comment on this)
|
| Monday, March 8th, 2010
| |
7:03 pm
|
sarracenia
|
A tiny old wank, but one that's a microcosm of why I love programming wank.
Background information for non-computer people:
PHP is an older web programming language, that's widely supported by everyone on the planet and thus decidedly uncool. IBM supports it, for chrissakes. Do you get more stodgy than that?
Ruby on Rails is a new, hip web programming language and framework that is way cooler than PHP. And supposedly it's easier to program with, but mostly it is way cool. Twitter uses it!
Frameworks are software to make it easier to program. They're kinda boring, except that Ruby on Rails has theirs automatically included while PHP people have to find or make their own, thus making Rails infinitely more cool.
When writing an article about your new PHP framework, never, ever make an unflattering side comment about Rails. Else its creator will jump in immediately with:
“Rails also suffers because it is hard to decouple Rails code from page display code.”. WTF?
Have you actually tried Rails? What part of MVC escaped your observant eye? When you talk about “Rails code”, what would you be referring to? Business logic? Controller logic? Hand-waving logic?
Not only does Rails go to greater lengths than most to separate concerns, but it also ships with a host of solutions to better organize “page display code” (I assume you’re referring to view logic). From partials to helpers to layouts.
Hell must certainly have frozen over with pigs flying across the skies. There’s no other day of the week that a PHP framework could be slinging accusations of poorly separated concerns.
CLEARLY THIS IS OFF TO A FRIENDLY START. Why, next I expect them to be sitting in a circle singing Kumbaya. Or slinging accusations of slander, hyperbole, cult membership, and of course fascism in less than thirty comments. One of the two.
|
|
(33 comments | comment on this)
|
|
|
|
|
