indeed. [link]

Hacking the 512k Mac: [link]

This is a Macintosh 512k which I upgraded to run OS X by replacing the innards with a modern Mac Mini and various supporting components, including a grayscale CRT monitor, an LS-120 floppy disk drive, and a microcontroller-based USB device that interfaces the Mini to the original keyboard and mouse.

Has anyone here done Ruby on Rails development? Did it live up to the hype?

Yes. Oh yes.

I taught a course in it this spring at a local community college, and am quite happy to answer questions.

Question I always have with highly data-driven frameworks: how is the performance?

What sort of applications have you developed with it? By what factors would you say it affected the rate of both development and maintenance?

OTW is developing fan archive software using Ruby on Rails. There's a copy of the archive development roadmap on that site.

I have no idea why, but it makes me happy that the use of Null in SQL is controversial: linky-poo

Null is awesome.

The ISO SQL implementation of Null is the subject of criticism, debate and calls for change. In The Relational Model for Database Management: Version 2, Dr. E.F. Codd suggested that the SQL implementation of Null was flawed and should be replaced by two distinct Null-type markers. The markers he proposed were to stand for "Missing but Applicable" and "Missing but Inapplicable", known as A-values and I-values, respectively. Codd's recommendation, if accepted, would have required the implementation of a four-valued logic in SQL.[3] Others have suggested adding additional Null-type markers to Codd's recommendation to indicate even more reasons that a data value might be "Missing", increasing the complexity of SQL's logic system. At various times, proposals have also been put forth to implement multiple user-defined Null markers in SQL. Because of the complexity of the Null-handling and logic systems required to support multiple Null markers, none of these proposals have gained widespread acceptance.

Now I really want to study more database theory....

I have long been coming to the conclusion that relational databases are more trouble than they're worth. There are certain domains where they are absolutely necessary, but people use them in lots of circumstances where they don't fit the problem.

Ruby on Rails being a prime example.

I have long been coming to the conclusion that relational databases are more trouble than they're worth.

Dem's fightin' words!

Ok, not really.

I don't know much about Ruby on Rails, so I googled. So I guess it requires a relational database? Huh.