I don't know, I'm not sure what the market is. Tech people or people with money to blow?

She has an iphone and a dumb husband(me) that can afford to buy her a stupid $600 watch. She also gains satisfaction having people see her wearing said watch. So maybe. She definitely isn't in the category of someone that's going to figure out how to do cool stuff on it, if that's even possible.

She was so excited she could get a boarding pass on there, but then to scan it you'd have to take off the watch. It's ******ed. Like the people at starbucks paying with their phones, this takes way more time than it does for me to take out my credit card.

I think people are investing in the idea of what a watch could be, not what it is now, and that means something.

I've had my tablet for a year and a half now. I bought it for the simple use case of reading PDFs on the go, which I still use it for. I don't use it for anything else. I wish there was a cheap and useful e-ink PDF reader available. Mine is full-color with the same aspect ratio as the iPad, which is perfect for PDF, code, and math layout, but staring at a shining light is exhausting. I think I paid $125 for it.

One of the poorest functioning, worst designed websites i've ever used is Disneyland's/Disneyworld's. It's almost funny bad.

Not sure if color is a must, but I love my kindle paperwhite for reading. Does not strain the eyes.

+1. i had an original kindle earlier, and was skeptical about the backlighting on the paperwhite, but you can turn it down to nearly nothing, so that in normal light it looks just like it predecessors, and the backlighting is nice to have when reading in the dark.

dunno, couple hundred bucks or something. i'm skeptical of being able to work out details. basically, my prediction is that in the next 5 years, there won't be many people wearing the things. what is many? i don't really know and don't care enough to research what the current sales are, what their projections are, etc. i just don't think i will ever see them in the wild with any kind of regularity, the way i know see everyone and his grandmother holding an iphone. 10 years, that's another story because the tech could evolve to replace phones or get some new value it doesn't have have. i *still* don't think they would, but am not as confident of that. if you want to do the work to come up with details, i'm game.

FWIW I agree that they won't be widespread.

Possibly embarrassing question:
I use npm/browserify/grunt for my React projects. Is there any way of nicely integrating the needed CSS files for JS modules that I'm missing?
Currently I'm using a template git repo I made and cloning from it and all is nice and dandy except for the CSS files that I pretty much manually update in the "css" directory. I'm using bootstrap and c3 as libraries that have their own css.

There is so many cool things that could be done with a product like google glass compared to a smart watch. Hoping Google amazes me with a relaunch soon.

What do you mean by integrate? If you're looking to make a boilerplate deal I guess you could do a private npm module? Maybe bower?

Yeah basically I want a boilerplate where the CSS is in sync with the required JS modules. I have no idea what best/common practices are and it's a little hard to google for it.
The JS ecosystem is a tad confusing

Edit:
I only had react-bootstrap in my package.json...seems like adding bootstrap does the trick. There's minified css in the corresponding subdirectory on node_modules which I load as css in my index.html now

https://github.com/klei/gulp-inject#...or-development

probably want something like this

The must is handling PDF, being large enough to display with constant zoom, or at least having correct reflow. Black and white would be fine.

I use webpack along with the commonjs style of requiring things. Webpack is the best front end tool I've seen yet.

I just require in css as dependencies of my JS and webpack takes care of figuring everything out. It also acts as an amazingly flexible build tool. It also has support for babel. Writing ES6 code that complies into ES5 with source maps is no problem.

It also lets you setup a dev asset server that supports live reloading and hot reloading for everything. It even supports hot reloading of react code, check this short demo video:

.

I use gulp browserify babel but I've heard good things about webpack and I can see why the "less config" strategy will probably make it the winner.

I spent a couple hours today "learning" Java. I guess I just don't get it - why does anyone want to do the things it and other static languages make you do? Just little things like "void" - you have to explicitly tell the compiler this method doesn't return anything. Why don't, you know, just not return anything? What a pain in the ass.

Maybe since most people use an IDE that has shortcut keys for auto method stub creation.

Example:

type:
method(s1);

Press "alt" + "enter" for popup "Create method 'method'" and hit enter again to create.

^^ very fast and can do it for any type of method.
Eclipse also has this ability but not sure what the shortcut is because it has been awhile since I last used it.

Statically typed languages can be pretty awesome. I very much recommend learning at least one and knowing what it's good for. Java is constantly getting better (I really like the stuff that was added in Java 8) and the JVM is very robust and optimized.
I like to lolCobol at it but truth be told it's a very good tool for many jobs. I'm pretty sure someone with good Java experience does stuff as quickly as the supposedly quick languages. Some web stuff can probably be done as quickly in Java-whatever as in RoR.

+especially for web the Java stuff constantly ranks on top in benchmarks.
+huge community, easy to find people, lots of libraries for interesting stuff (especially in some academic domains)

If I'd do a startup it would probably be using sexy tech I'd love to use (Erlang, Go, All-JS or something) but it'd probably be a lot smarter to just spend a couple of days researching what stuff exists in the Java ecosystem and rolling with that.

If only java wasn't so broken and bad in the browser for users.

isn't the tldr just: "java is fast"?

also, good tooling and library support

you can get static typing *and* have clean, compact, readable syntax -- eg, haskell. so that's not really a good reason to learn java.

i rarely hear people defend java's verbosity. for the most part it's universally acknowledged as a negative, but some people think it's a trifling, cosmetic negative and others abhor it.

From what I've seen supporting Java apps it's typically more of a problem with the developer than the language.

if you leave java enabled in the browser, you're already part of multiple botnets

I thought this was common knowledge?

Fast; good tooling/libs; robust/well tested/lots of money bet on it; lots of developers/community/lingua franca-ish due to C-style syntax; reasonably cross platform; OOP abstraction is familiar to most people; compiler catches stuff you have to write tests for in more dynamic languages (+rely on the tests not being faulty); static typing is useful for IDEs (easy+fast autocomplete etc.)

The list is good enough that I'd have to look for specific reasons to pick another language.
I'm too dumb for Haskell so I can't compare it but the developer pool is probably not huge.

Note: I only write Java occasionally but I think it's dismissed way too quickly by many (I enjoy the occasional lolNeoCobol remark every now and then). Unless the argument is very specific it's usually...yeah looks ugly+lots to type.

The verbosity is ridiculous - but I think anyone that uses it for non-trivial purposes quickly find the tools that move it to basically a cosmetic negative.

Of course, because programmers are programmers, something being a trifling, cosmetic negative often means its also something they abhor.

The problem is how ****ty the implementation is for Java in the browser.
Nobody in the right mind is going to pick Java over JavaScript or any other alternative, when facing this case and it is a huge shame that it is so bad.

The experience is comparable to flash and I hate flash.
Flash ads impracticalur, mining Bitcoin, causing a computer to be sluggish and just bad in general.

Clowntable, why do you say you are too dumb for Haskell? I doubt it is nearly as difficult as you think.

Not sure if anyone else experiences this, but using a bunch of hot-keys and drop down menus to tab-complete code I never read or wrote causes considerable disconnect from what I'm writing.

Grue, I don't understand the void complaint. The main thing a static language forces you to do is declare the types a function can accept, so you can't pass floats to a function that accepts ints. Java forces you to declare Void, but other languages do not.