Wednesday, May 23, 2018

Threesome for The First Time!

I had two women instead of one the other night at the Admiral Theater strip club in Chicago. They became my girlfriends and we are still seeing each other, albeit 5 orgasms at a time (well if you take their orgasms into account, that makes it 23 orgasms at a time, Michael Jordan's Chicago Bulls lucky number for ya). So, I kept reaching out for the breasts of one, then feeling bad for the other girl, and reaching out for her breasts too, then complimenting both of their breasts and saying they were equally beautiful (not really, there was a pair better than the other, but they ate it up anyways and loved me for it).

Apparently, a man's body is capable of extending libido to multiple women (I should have known, it's in the Bible!). It was such a fun discovery for me that started with one stripper inviting her girlfriend in the middle of our dance. Later she says I could stick it in them afterward. I tell them I play the drums and would be happy to give them lessons, let alone letting them play with my drum stick. They happily complied.

I am surprised because I fuck-buddied a couple of lesbians before in the past (lesbians become straight in my presence for being a gentleman) and while they invited their girlfriends for threesomes, I never went for it. I think their girlfriends being ugly bitches had something to do with it. Not this time.

Anyways, as a programmer, I love having undergone the process of analyzing women and cracking them like a computer programming puzzle. It is a scientific experimentation process (women beam up when I tell them that). I still remember the day I had 3 women on the same day 5 years ago, one of which begged me for sex upon meeting up, and the other begged me for becoming my girlfriend. Sadly for them, the 3rd girl was my girlfriend, so I only complied for sex with the first two girls, while giving my girlfriend multiple orgasms night and day.

Also, getting women laid is a skill just like any other skill. 15 years ago, women used to tell me no. 10 years ago, they would not say no anymore provided I made consistent effort in reaching out to them. 5 years ago, I learned to lay a woman in the first 10 minutes of meeting her. I thought it was a co-incidence until I repeated that for the 3rd time, and then knew it was a permanent skill acquisition.

Never let anyone tell you how to run your sex life. Only you decide that for yourself. Avoid anyone who does. They degrade our American living experience and don't belong here no matter how many long generations of English bullshit they come from. Here in America, you don't police people's sex lives! You don't make assumptions about who they're fucking! Focus on your sex life instead and if you're unhappy, don't go spreading your unhappiness everywhere.

I think I'm gonna start offering sex tips in addition to programming tips from now on. I'm very good at it apparently, especially that I look very inconspicuous to women. My massive sex life was under wraps for the longest time while consulting for Obtiva and working for other companies. At 37 years old, it's silly to hide it anymore. Yes, I do have a lot of casual sex with many women! Employer macho men boss dorks! Stop making assumptions about my sex life. It's none of your business! I realize you might be attracted to me sexually and that's why you're doing it! Well, you're barking up the wrong tree!

Until next time! Enjoy your freedom in America and make America great again for everyone!

Saturday, May 12, 2018

The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit

Having spent time reverse engineering life into its bits and bytes lead me to the Lord our father in heaven as the originator of the universe. I continued that journey afterward reading the Bible. Part of the Old Testament known as the Pentateuch is actually the word of God handed down to our prophet Moses. Unfortunately, it has not been perfectly preserved and you can tell there are maliciously inserted parts for Godless ulterior motives. Otherwise, it is very enjoyable to figure out what is true in it, mostly through pondering and prayer. It is equally enjoyable to do so with the man written parts of the Bible, many of which are inspired by the Lord. I wish I had read the Bible much sooner in my life. I have spent too many years missing out on the great guidance in it while committing adultery with many beautiful women. I could have done the right thing instead by marrying early and having my love relationship be only about propagation and raising good children as per the Lord’s guidance. At least, I caught up with Christianity finally, which brings me to the next topic. What is Christianity?

For a while, I thought it a separate religion from Judaism, but the more I pondered what I learned from pastors at churches and read in the Bible, the more I realized, Christianity is simply Judaism, reformed and refreshed by the prophet Jesus Christ, also known as the messiah. In essence, becoming a good Christian is becoming a good jew. Now, that is a very difficult proposition to many people, but the right path of the Lord in this life is only but a test before we are forever admitted into Heaven or temporarily/permanently punished in Hell on judgement day.

I hope the Lord continues to lead me to the right path in this life through the Holy Spirit, and help inspire everyone to repent for their sins and join the right path themselves.

May God bless you all.


Saturday, November 25, 2017

puts_debuggerer 0.8.0 is out!

puts_debuggerer, the library for improved Ruby puts debugging, now has better support for Rails.

In a Rails environment, puts_debuggerer now automatically outputs to Rails logs at the debug level. This is facilitated using the new "printer" support, which is a configurable option that comes with smart defaults.

The "printer" option value can be a global method symbol or lambda expression to use in printing to the user. Examples of global methods are :puts and :print. An example of a lambda expression is lambda {|output| Rails.logger.info(output)}
It defaults to :puts , but if Rails is detected, it defaults to: lambda {|output| Rails.logger.debug(output)}
Example:
# File Name: /Users/User/example.rb
PutsDebuggerer.printer = lambda {|output| Rails.logger.error(output)}
str = "Hello"
pd str
Prints out in the Rails app log as error lines:
[PD] /Users/User/example.rb:5
   > pd str
  => Hello

Learn more about puts_debuggerer over here: https://github.com/AndyObtiva/puts_debuggerer

Monday, October 23, 2017

Thursday, August 17, 2017

React.js is for Dumb People

There is no redeeming point to this blog post, so if you're greatly offended by the title, move on please and make America great again by respecting people's freedoms.

Yes, React.js is for Dumb People, literally!

Think of the selling points:
- Reliable for being supported by a major company: Facebook
- High performance
- Everything (content, style, behavior) is mixed into the same file, making it simpler to understand
- Components

Any web developer worth his salt knows how to put a small JavaScript component using nothing but pure JavaScript + a library like jQuery, and it's FAST ENOUGH for 90% of the businesses out there as well as super reliable, especially when covered by Jasmine tests or the like, and finally with so little code pumped out, is super maintainable too.

Before I revisit React.js's selling points, notice who its main adopting audience is: Super inexperienced developers worried about not understanding JavaScript and thus need a guarantee of reliability, performance, and a dumbproof way for understanding content, style, and behavior!

In fact, I'd say React.js's success mainly comes from the rise of programming to a degree that everyone and their mother got hired at software development companies, even without degrees or sufficient training.

"- Reliable for being supported by a major company: Facebook"

Yes, an inexperienced developer who wants to lie to a customer to give them confidence in his skills will want to heavily sit on a technology backed by a major company like Facebook.

Naturally, an experienced smart developer can piece together code relying on good open-source libraries by judging them from experience and good software engineering skills. Such a smart developer has already delivered software to thousands if not millions of customers and as such has no worry about requiring an open-source library to have the backing of a large company like Facebook.

"- High performance"

An inexperienced dumb developer doesn't even realize that most business apps don't need much performance since they don't have a highly updating user-interface, so they waste their time over-engineering their solution by using React.js under the guise of simplicity when an experienced developer already wrote many fast-enough simpler components without React.js and maintained them better.

"- Everything (content, style, behavior) is mixed into the same file, making it simpler to understand"

Hahaha. This is like saying I don't know how to ride a bike (maintain content, style and behavior separately), so let's add a third wheel and pretend to be riding a bike. 'Nuff Said!

"- Components"

I already touched on that under the performance section, but let's just say this is the "EXCITING" part of React.js for many new comers who've never wrote a component on their own before due to having very little formal training in software engineering or even Agile software development methods like eXtreme Programming.

Yes, people have been writing components for decades. Yes, GOOD developers do that only. Yes, it takes experience to write good components. Check out TinyMCE as a good example among many JS libraries that are componentized.

Let's use a bit of intelligence and agility in writing our JavaScript code, shall we!

Sunday, August 06, 2017

Ultra Light Wizard v0.1.4 Wizard Step Breadcrumb

Ultra Light Wizard just got an update (v0.1.4). It now ships with a wizard step breadcrumb like the one in this screenshot:



Its semantic markup and CSS is easily stylable and customizable, especially to developers well-versed in HTML5 and CSS3.

Enjoy!

Saturday, July 29, 2017

How To Test-Drive Rails Generators?

Rails generators are a form of meta-programming in Ruby. They're basically programs that write programs. To be more specific, in my open-source project Ultra Light Wizard (also a pattern presented at RailsConf 2014), the Rails generator ultra_light_wizard:scaffold generates models, controllers, views, routes, helpers and a migration automatically when the user wants to build a wizard.

How does one test-drive such a Rails generator though?

I started by writing a standard RSpec test and then quickly realized that if I were to test-drive what each file generated contains, I'd be opening a can of worms and getting lost in so much unimportant detail.

Then, I had an idea. Why not create a full-fledged Rails app as a fixture and place it under the "spec/fixtures" directory?

Next, how about I configure the app exactly as needed to run the generate command from a test, but then during the test, I leave it untouched and copy it on every test-run to avoid messing up the reference version?

Well, to explain, you end up with an RSpec test that looks like this:


Now, comes the tricky part. How do you test by invoking the generator on the project copy?

Well, I took the easy way out and simply dropped down to the shell from Ruby as follows:

In other words, by invoking "rake" from the Rails project copy, I started another RSpec test suite run from within my main test suite. Totally meta, eh!?

Now, here comes the meat of the work, in the form of feature specs written for the Rails project copy. To explain, the tests shown below are written from the user's point of view for the effect of running the generator in a real Rails app (the top part consists of helpers [e.g. fill_in_project_fields] and the bottom part has the test cases as "scenarios" [e.g. scenario 'can start wizard']):

And with that... problem solved. Here is an example test run:


Notice how the inside RSpec test-run (from the reference Rails project copy) reported 5 examples, and then the outer RSpec test-run reported 1 example (the one that spawned the rest).

Pros to this approach are success in covering end-result of generation, and decoupling tests from detailed work of generator.

Cons are obviously increased complexity, albeit that is balanced with decreased complexity of writing the inner integration specs and freedom of implementation.

How have you handled Rails generator testing in the past? Care to discuss pros and cons?