boubiyeah

10 ms·

61.
by boubiyeah 8y ago
This was both funny and sad
62.
by boubiyeah 8y ago
There's a way to fix both: Don't multiply dependencies, especially the ones of low quality. In the worst case scenario, revert to local (checked-in) type definitions and fix it. It never was a problem for me after more than 5 big
63.
by boubiyeah 8y ago
Elm actually means Elm + JS. Given 1) The language development pace (localStorage does not have an Elm equivalent, let alone service workers, etc) and 2) The Elm ecosystem is very closed and only one person can actually release powerful lib
64.
by boubiyeah 8y ago
It's such a niche feature. And only useful if you use mutative OO style. Also it gets a bit too much into the magic territory for me, this is hard to debug and reason about, even harder than getter/setters.
65.
by boubiyeah 8y ago
moment doesn't have a modern API. It's a bloated, non modular and mutable mess. It's also pretty much abandonned. The cycle continues :) PS: I use date-fns, which is the flavour of the day.
66.
by boubiyeah 8y ago
Scala has an insanely productive and efficient streaming ecosystem with the likes of Kafka and Akka streams. You can use those with other languages but it's not nearly as nice.
67.
by boubiyeah 8y ago
MongoDB is pretty average at absolutely everything. It's fast to install on a dev machine though, lol.
68.
by boubiyeah 8y ago
What the hell is this...
69.
by boubiyeah 8y ago
Warm, like the answers here and your downvotes :D
70.
by boubiyeah 8y ago
Annnnd that's why I like types :D
71.
by boubiyeah 8y ago
The webpack "schema" is extremely complex and dynamic in shape. You can often return a scalar, or an Array, or some objects with various optional keys for the same config option. That choice has a cognitive price and documentation
72.
by boubiyeah 8y ago
Plus, it uses a lot of CPU/battery everytime you save in your IDE whether you're going to actually check the result or not.
73.
by boubiyeah 8y ago
Explain that bold claim? Apart from the very annoying Event compatibility layer with its event pooling and central handling that breaks the usual DOM event bubbling, I never saw something bad enough that would make someone consider de-React
74.
by boubiyeah 8y ago
You would have to bet on Elm being maintained in the future. It's quite a lot of buy in, especially considering it's just one guy. Also, some apps are just very difficult to code in Elm (interactive, lots of DOM manipulations, vid
75.
by boubiyeah 8y ago
typescript has both :D
76.
by boubiyeah 9y ago
My experience with tripadvisor: 4.5: Should be fine if there are many votes and the top ones don't look forged 4: average 3.5: Avoid at all cost People are so bad at giving objective ratings. I often see people mostly rate their f
77.
by boubiyeah 9y ago
But why
78.
by boubiyeah 9y ago
Funny piece :) I'm getting the impression the underlying message is that in most common situations a high test coverage is often overrated? This would also be my impression after working on dozens of projects
79.
by boubiyeah 9y ago
Elm was a nice experiment, but people need to put things in production and be confident they can fully maintain all of their code and dependencies.
80.
by boubiyeah 9y ago
Yeah that freaking blows. They keep it for compatibility with java. It's not idiomatic code though, you would use an Option.
81.
by boubiyeah 9y ago
It's impossible to stream a JSON Array
82.
by boubiyeah 9y ago
I share your sentiment. But isn't it just their experiment page that uses too much JS as opposed to the approach requiring a ton of JS by nature?
83.
by boubiyeah 9y ago
It's not so black and white :) Robustness, you're absolutely right, Elm cannot be beat. But it comes at a price: It's pretty limiting/underpowered. Typescript is very expressive these days and you can write some very nea
84.
by boubiyeah 9y ago
But are language enthusiasts really better hires in general? I've known many of them who loved the theory and toying with a language but were not any better at producing actual value than the average joe.
85.
by boubiyeah 9y ago
Agreed. It was a complete piece of crap when it was around version 1.4-1.6 but it's pretty good now!
86.
by boubiyeah 9y ago
Hardly a waste of time unless you're driving your own car. Else, you read a book, etc.
87.
by boubiyeah 9y ago
I don't know... not all web standards worked well in the past: xhtml, appcache, etc. I wouldn't be surprised if web components never got success. Why should anyone use this standard when a library is 10 times better? Being the sta
88.
by boubiyeah 9y ago
Living in France, these comments are all so sad :(
89.
by boubiyeah 9y ago
Can you post that util file as a gist?
90.
by boubiyeah 9y ago
It's true it's easier now that typescript has richer types (nullable, mapped, etc)

More ›