It sounds like this company is firmly founded (a year old, spending money, etc), so asking to become a co-founder at this point isn't fair to founder(s). Seeing as you've also been paid for the work you've done so far this seems like an amazing generous offer. Also think about what a different candidate would accept as CTO, which is what must happen should you decline.
No, it's certainly not firmly founded. The business plan has changed within the past couple months and it's been iterated over a lot. There was a prototype developed, but it's just given to investors for them to look at and is very basic / stripped down.
I couldn't disagree more. There was indeed a very dark age due to Microsoft. I often wonder what a world full of scientist and engineers that had the highest quality software available to them would have been like. Instead we got Microsoft's monopolistic and predatory business and consequently we have all suffered. If you perceive Apple as being controlling then you must not have lived through this Dark Age like I did.
I was not referring to Microsoft, I was referring to the PC as a hardware platform. Besides, in Microsoft's OS, there were very few restrictions as to what you could do and develop and distribute, so de facto Windows was a very open OS as well in that sense. Not very good maybe, but a space everyone could use without restrictions.
And despite Microsoft and its practices, the fact that the PC was open, hardware-wise, made it possible for Linux to exist. That's how flexible the PC platform is.
I'm confused about your talk of vesting. Founders don't vest, they create the stock and sell/give it to others with a dollar amount or vesting schedule. Are you a founder or an early stage employee?
Any developer has an addressable market to target. I don't think we really care what the OS is (Win,Xbox,PS4,iOS,whatever). If there is a market opportunity, we pounce. There simply has not been a Linux market opportunity that has inspired any real business. Will SteamOS change that? Time will tell....
It is new for every person learning it. Every paradigm is a new paradigm for the person learning it. When someone learns logic programming usually they already learned structured or object oriented already. Then logic is _new_ for them and _them_ here is almost every programmer out there.
And the fact that is 40+ years old actually supports my point. It is so old yet it hasn't caught on yet. Maybe just maybe it is waiting for its time in the limelight and it hasn't come yet... Or is that Bananarama playing in the background, and my Sony Walkman is running out of batteries... ;-)
> I'd hardly call logic programming new. At 40+ years old, it's one of the oldest paradigms in computer science!
Isn't logic programming one of the newest programming paradigms out there at about 40 years of age?
There are examples of Imperative, Functional, Object-Oriented and other Declarative programming languages that predate the first logic programming systems from the early 1970's.
When I had a logic programming course at the uni a few years ago, my prof started with an anecdote. He had been teaching the logic and contraint programming course since the years before the "AI winter" of the 1980's, and when he first started it truly was the newest paradigm out there and it was the sexy new entrant to the field. 30 years have passed but no major paradigms have emerged (arguable) so he still begins his course the same way, 30 years later. But with a grain of salt, of course...
You own your damn phone. Apple didn't lock you up and force your money out of you. Stop whining about getting what you paid for. I love my iPhone, and the iPhone market, but I understand what I paid for. You have plenty of alternatives.
No. I've used SCUMM, was the core systems engineer on Grim, and founded Telltale. I'm very familiar with both. The spirit of SCUMM is very much alive, but SCUMM is a system, not just a language. Lua runs circles around SCUMM as a language (SCUMM didn't support >8bit numeric types till Monkey3!), but as a game development system SCUMM was really cool. There's much that Unreal, Unity, etc could learn from it, but "running circles around Lua" is (ahem) hyperbole.
I don't know what version was used in Escape from Monkey Isand (3.1 ?), but the current version of Lua also "runs in circles" around the Lua that was used in those games.
Thanks for your work on Grim. It's the reason I learned Lua (via LuaDec and extracting code out of the .LAB files), and I play it at least once a year.
Google is still a one trick pony from a revenue perspective. It sells advertising pixels in web browsers. As the world moves to consuming less and less info via web browsers this will become a bigger problem for Google. It seems every day I am getting so much more of my info from mobile/tablet apps than I am from a traditional browser. For instance I use the Yelp app to find businesses instead the browser. Of course I still spend a lot of time in a browser, but I certainly see a future where the browser goes the way of newsprint as my devices get smarter and smarter software. Google doesn't have a revenue model for those devices (yet).
Do you really believe that, in the near future, people will download and use an app. for every single service they want to access? Yelp is one thing. What about news? Are you only going to read The New York Times? Or are you going to download the iOS app. of every single CBS/ABC/NBC/FOX affiliate in the U.S.?
People complain about how Google uses their personal data. But because of Google's dominant position, they have practically every eye on them, watching their every move. If everything were more decentralized, it would be much more difficult to determine who has your data and what they're doing with it. Think about the many recent unauthorized data breaches at Gawker, etc. Google's model makes sense. Their product is great. If Google can't earn enough revenue and goes bankrupt, do you really think you'll be better off than you are now? Google has helped to develop many of technologies that are critical to your favorite apps. Their innovations push the web forward, and we are lucky to have them.
Next, think about how Apple controls their "App Store". If all of the ad. revenue shifts to Apple, will we be better-off with them controlling which apps make it and which apps are "rejects"? What kind of novel, 'core' technologies has Apple ever freely shared with the Internet? I'm sick of people bashing Google all of the time… Do you remember Webcrawler? Do you want to go back to using that? Or ---god forbid--- Bing?
Lastly, the author of this article, "Eric Jackson, founder of Ironfire Capital", said pretty much the exact same thing about Facebook on June 4th of this year:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/47674474/Facebook_Will_Disappear_in_5...
Can anyone think of a reason why a talking head for a financial TV network would think twice before spewing bullshit? This guy probably sends pre-publication copies of his articles to friends who short the stocks on his 'hit list'…kinda like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Plotkin
