Timon3

39 ms·

751.
by Timon3 3y ago
That's definitely much worse, both due to what you describe, and due to the fact that you don't know what the label on the other side says.
752.
by Timon3 3y ago
It depends on the structure of your site. If you have, say, 10 pairs of boolean options in quick succession, toggles work way better than radio buttons.
753.
by Timon3 3y ago
Do you have concrete examples that are much harder in the web than in native? When I started developing, I very much liked the web technologies for not being in my way - you have to learn their pitfalls and so on, but once you're up an
754.
by Timon3 3y ago
A toggle works fine if it's not treated as boolean, due to the exact problem you mention. What fixes it for me is having the meaning spelled out on both sides of the toggle, e.g. like this: dark (o ) light
755.
by Timon3 3y ago
> What was the alternative? Twitter lost money from the start and it seemed like they had no plan on how to be profitable. This seems like a strange idea, considering they were profitable in some years. Sure, they had losses afterwards
756.
by Timon3 3y ago
I remember that a trick for improving CSS animation performance was to explicitly add a 3D transform, as that would force the browser to use hardware acceleration. Could you give that a try? https://stackoverflow.com/questio
757.
by Timon3 3y ago
> Anyone with access to an internet browser can see that what Media Matters did was orchestrated and coordinated among the media and engineered as a hit piece. I have access to an internet browser. How can I see that? Who orchestrated it
758.
by Timon3 3y ago
> Lots of children in bad households have made out to be ok, and plenty of children with well-off families. And many of those children in bad households have been able to get where they are due to being helped by the state, which you do
759.
by Timon3 3y ago
> That's exactly where the "Insurance" part comes in. How does that work for people who have never been able to work (i.e. chilren in bad households and people with disabilities from birth/young age)? They can't
760.
by Timon3 3y ago
I strongly disagree. There are many groups in our society who shouldn't have to rely on charity for survival, like the disabled, the elderly and children. Letting those without the means to provide for themselves die if they're un
761.
by Timon3 3y ago
> Static typing is a very bad software development practice. There are a lot of other software development practices that are superior to it. Can you give some examples for these supposedly superior techniques? > "help you in ref
762.
by Timon3 3y ago
> Because JavaScript is the worse programming language in common commerical usage today. It was designed over several decades by browser manufacturers. Do you mean "the worst"? There are plenty languages that are worse, and tha
763.
by Timon3 3y ago
Static typing for JavaScript hasn't turned out to be poor engineering - it helps massively and has become the de-facto norm. Similarly, static typing in Python is a massive help and keeps getting better. Why would Ruby be any different
764.
by Timon3 3y ago
> That's not to say PHP isn't been overcomplicating itself & hasn't fully embraced why it's so succesfull and improved that part: it's easy & practical. Do you have specific examples for things where PHP
765.
by Timon3 3y ago
> Because it was very accessible for people to get into it without being you know, a 10 year programming veteran at least. Sure. Wouldn't it be nice to allow these people to write better code without having to change their language?
766.
by Timon3 3y ago
PHP got shamed for these things because people built complex, and over time unmaintainable, systems in it. Mind you, the "old ways" still work - you can still write a few lines, upload it, boom it works. Projects around PHP might
767.
by Timon3 3y ago
> Let me address the one in python. > First off we are talking about concatenating tuples. > What you're doing here is called preppending an element to a tuple. Like come on man. Have you not been reading the examples I'v
768.
by Timon3 3y ago
> I'm not, I acknowledge everything you say. It may seem that I'm not acknowledging stuff. But this is not the case. I read and understand all your posts. Then why have you not yet acknowledged the Typescript concat function I
769.
by Timon3 3y ago
I defined the concat function in TS and Python below: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38391702 Now, obviously Python doesn't support it due to a restriction in the TypeVarTuple PEP, which is the literal entire po
770.
by Timon3 3y ago
Yep, that works fine: https://www.typescriptlang.org/play?target=8#code/IYZwngdgxg...
771.
by Timon3 3y ago
moring is describing an issue where the creation of the promise itself fails, which means Promise.all/Promise.allSettled is never called.
772.
by Timon3 3y ago
> Haskell one of the languages with the most advanced type systems in practical programming. Algebraic data types. You clearly haven't used it so of course you remain unconvinced. Wrong. > It seems this way to you because frankly
773.
by Timon3 3y ago
> I understand everything. It's you who doesn't understand. What I described is for ALL type systems in general. Not python types. Then why is what you're claiming to be impossible possible in Typescript? How can that be?
774.
by Timon3 3y ago
The operator exists. I can use it today, without exiting the type system, both in Python (limited to only unpacking one tuple type) and Typescript (not limited). Why do you keep claiming this to be impossible, when it already exists right n
775.
by Timon3 3y ago
Those are good suggestions, thanks!
776.
by Timon3 3y ago
That kind of works. I guess I keep thinking about it from the perspective of the type itself instead of the function that uses it.
777.
by Timon3 3y ago
Yeah, that seems likely. I'm not sure how to express the concept aside from the name I've seen used in the community (and my many subsequent explanations), considering I was explicitly talking about typing.
778.
by Timon3 3y ago
So you keep going on and on about how this is wrong, and doesn't work, and doesn't exist, and it's impossible, because it isn't implemented in Haskell? Seriously? This is one of the strangest and worst interactions I&#x2
779.
by Timon3 3y ago
> There's nothing like this in any type system I've seen. A struct with a generic amount of properties? Nonexistent. This isn't personal. This is the definition of a tuple. A tuple is a struct with no names. It is not a pe
780.
by Timon3 3y ago
> You're thinking fixed size arrays. It doesn't make sense to have tuples of arbitrary size. My god. No, Python doesn't support "fixed size arrays", but it does support tuples of arbitrary size, no matter how oft

More ›