nawgz

93 ms·

931.
by nawgz 6y ago
Right, OP mis-spoke about some critical, leading detail of their argument, while going on to support questionably legal action giving off a great appearance of market manipulation by large entities with great vigor. I think this supports my
932.
by nawgz 6y ago
In response to this accusation [0], this user has linked a document [1] which shows the exact opposite of his claims [2]. Please do not downvote me for calling out strange activity by an account which is also spreading misinformation. [0]:
933.
by nawgz 6y ago
I hold no positions related to the questions at hand. You however have gone from a random blogger who speaks largely about tech & politics and now is quite invested in defending a very crooked appearing move, all while making claims you
934.
by nawgz 6y ago
Surely, posting unsourced FUD is too? > most short positions are actually held by retail investors That is an unsourced lie, told at a time to cause maximum confusion about what is happening in a situation where large financial entities
935.
by nawgz 6y ago
Ok, then source this quote please: > most short positions are actually held by retail investors Shilling doesn't mean you haven't used this account before.
936.
by nawgz 6y ago
That seems less-and-less true as time goes on. Many brokers are not allowing users to buy GME even if their UX implies you can.
937.
by nawgz 6y ago
> Robinhood probably is also trying to protect most of its users from being the last ones holding the hot potato This narrative is false. Robinhood users are executing a short squeeze on Melvin Capital, who have shorted the stock which g
938.
by nawgz 6y ago
uBlock origin works fine on Chrome today as it has for years. With their new "no third party cookie" BS we might see it break but until then I don't think they can be so user hostile
939.
by nawgz 6y ago
Imagine having the arrogance to say "back in the day I looked at this language and I can firmly stay the whole thing is shit". Imagine that thing being the language powering the UIs of the entire modern web . You have already sho
940.
by nawgz 6y ago
> Usually in combination with some babel plugin messing things up To be honest with you, you can't really blame React in this situation - it is nonetheless immensely frustrating to be sure. > Redux is quickly going out of fashion
941.
by nawgz 6y ago
Yes we can. Please remember Web Components have no backing, while React has a top tech company actively developing, maintaining, and embracing it. For the last 5 years, I've heard about "Native Web Components", and for 5 year
942.
by nawgz 6y ago
> Prior to that, there was a different approach and philosophy I don't really agree. Context and Provider have existed forever. Hooks really just expose the underlying setState calls with a different API and a more graceful backing
943.
by nawgz 6y ago
> "Enterprise level" has no clearly defined meaning, but I assume millions of dollars Ok, so Facebook builds UIs, manages a valuation worth close to a trillion dollars, and uses React everywhere (even sometimes outside of the w
944.
by nawgz 6y ago
> I really wish I saw what everyone else sees in TypeScript > It's surprisingly common for me to wrrite code that compiles but crashes at runtime Well, is it also common for you to allow `any` in your code? TypeScript is stronges
945.
by nawgz 6y ago
If you don't know why this was downvoted - React rose to popularity in 2014-2015, and so my code from 2016 working correctly implies that the library has remained compatible with code written almost at any point in its lifespan. Also,
946.
by nawgz 6y ago
> can they come back and build new React projects without significant re-training? Absolutely. For one, React introduced a few primary concepts: components, JSX, and the component lifecycle. Whether you wrote functional components, class
947.
by nawgz 6y ago
> hating on React What do you call it when someone claims changes to the definition of "idiomatic" usage is the same as being not backwards compatible, incorrectly? I calmly corrected the incorrect statement. There is no flamew
948.
by nawgz 6y ago
“We judge ourselves by our intentions and others by their actions”
949.
by nawgz 6y ago
I’m sorry, but this comment is a total goalpost mover, and complete BS. The goalpost moving: the initial article is talking about porting a desktop client based program with a reasonable amount of views to the web. Now Facebook scale and qu
950.
by nawgz 6y ago
Yes, which you can fix by moving a singular key of the context to component state. The beauty of hooks.
951.
by nawgz 6y ago
>React is stable? Yes. Despite what you're trying to imply about them "updating" too often, my code from 2016 still works correctly against the newest versions of React. That's pretty much the definition of stability
952.
by nawgz 6y ago
>I spent a yea rdoing a lot of intensive React + Electron + D3 + MobX in 2018 Right, and that code still runs and compiles exactly as it did then, correct? The fact that other tools move on doesn't mean you have to. Actually, out of
953.
by nawgz 6y ago
>frankly, let's stop pretending the JS ecosystem is not problematic. Can anyone in good faith argue for a Node project React is a node project, so I can do so trivially. React is a top tier library when it comes to key features like
954.
by nawgz 6y ago
As a React dev for half a decade, I strongly disagree with many of your points. > React [includes] so little that you become reliant on a ton of external dependencies React, since hooks, includes a full state management solution - Contex
955.
by nawgz 6y ago
> Just not the browser Most backend frameworks need literal compilation - all that's different here is that the target is a specific JS version, not machine code. Additionally, there's a bit of "naivety" here - browse
956.
by nawgz 6y ago
I really can't understand what your objective is here. Frameworks are going to exist in every single language. Do Python developers say "I cant wait til Pandas isn't part of my workflow"? I also will challenge your senti
957.
by nawgz 6y ago
It sounds like GP drank the mobx juice to me. Honestly, after using mobx, it's almost impossible to understand why Redux is popular. MobX is more concise, more performant, has a crazy amount of built-in optimizations, and lets you forg
958.
by nawgz 6y ago
How is magically hydrating a DSL extension of HTML any better than using JSX? Arguing about "non-native browser functionality" doesn't make any sense to me, your Angular app doesn't work until it's com-trans-piled i
959.
by nawgz 6y ago
I don't really understand what users are doing when they say things like this. What kind of features are you trying to implement? As a React dev since 2015, things were pretty bad initially in this way - but now you can literally build
960.
by nawgz 6y ago
>Burnout is a real thing but it's ridiculously overblown Right, people reporting the way they feel is a total lie Speaking as a dev who spent 2018-2019 30% out-of-state for travel - you're wrong

More ›