spion

36 ms·

361.
by spion 4y ago
Did you actually watch the video? The things are built in such a way that there is global state shared among components.
362.
by spion 4y ago
There is always client-side state. The dropdowns, for example, have selection that affects the entire app. That selection must be stored in a state which will affect the reloads triggered by changes in the dropdowns.
363.
by spion 4y ago
> But is it a reasonable alternative to build an alternative to webpack yourself? Before code-splitting, yes, it was quite easy (not much harder than building a makefile). Webpack is difficult and complex because it has to cater to lit
364.
by spion 4y ago
What do the tests look like for this? How do you check that you're not exposing the sensitive data?
365.
by spion 4y ago
I may have missed it in the video, but where exactly do they store all the "client-side" state? Postgres? Redis? Sessions?
366.
by spion 4y ago
The problem was there was no concept of reusable components. IMO htmx is not the headline here but django-components ( https://pypi.org/project/django-components/ ) is. Managing html, css and JS in component-reusabl
367.
by spion 4y ago
SST ( https://sst.dev/ ) has been a game-changer for me, it makes serverless bearable.
368.
by spion 4y ago
- Fighting webpack (its plugin system makes it a "build framework"). Lots of configuration complexity to support thousands of possible tool configurations, when you need only one combination. - Angular v1. Scope, transclusion, wat
369.
by spion 4y ago
I meant it "part of the job" the same way unit tests are. I see this more often when the project is open source. For some reason we feel like when its not, we don't need to pay attention to the documentation. Nothing could be
370.
by spion 4y ago
> Yeah, I think that's solved by the "market". The market will settle on "good enough for the average usecase". > But more broadly, what are the odds a bespoke framework will do it right? Will you think up a n
371.
by spion 4y ago
> In my experience this has been a point in favor of OTS frameworks Its not guaranteed. I've seen many developers spend lots of time trying to get the framework they're working in to cooperate or dig through bad documentation.
372.
by spion 4y ago
I agree that there is a problem here, but I think its a slightly different one. Frameworks and libraries both save you time and require you to invest some time. The main question is whether the savings will be bigger than the investment, an
373.
by spion 4y ago
Building a library or a framework comes with implied obligation to write extensive documentation. I wish more software engineers understood this.
374.
by spion 4y ago
When you say you never needed LSP, do you mean you've tried it and found no benefit to having it, or do you mean you're doing just fine without it? (Because its possible to do just fine without it yet still find significant benefi
375.
by spion 4y ago
Yeah, the designs of DI libraries in TS land often leave me wondering what the author was thinking.
376.
by spion 4y ago
You can make "believe_me" assertions, which is incredibly useful when writing advanced (metaprogramming heavy) library code. The idea is to try and contain / and heavily test the small "unsafe" library part and isol
377.
by spion 4y ago
Request-scoped DI (as seen in ASP.NET MVC) is great on the backend for servicing requests. You can ask for e.g. a class representing the current user information to be injected anywhere, or to keep track of request-associated state like ope
378.
by spion 4y ago
I'll give a practical, non-philosophical answer. Indeed, if you want to use emitDecoratorMetadata for automatic dependency injection, you should use classes. If the library itself takes advantage (again likely due to decorators) of cla
379.
by spion 4y ago
I'd actually prefer a GCed language, but Rust gets so many of the other things right that its still better than anything I've seen before (despite forcing a borrow checker on me).
380.
by spion 4y ago
This is something that should be in the core language, not in a deprecated library
381.
by spion 4y ago
Last time I looked at Nx it was very opinionated and I couldn't get it to work with an existing repo. In contrast I got running with turborepo in about 15 minutes in a fairly complex workspace project. Its very flexible, but in this ca
382.
by spion 4y ago
Yep. If its just JS, Turborepo would probably be a better choice nowadays.
383.
by spion 4y ago
This would be nice. I'd also like more traits/protocols/interfaces. I think deno is going in this direction but there is a lot more to do to get there.
384.
by spion 4y ago
No, I want first class algebraic datatypes that don't make easy things hard i.e. https://forum.nim-lang.org/t/904 vs `#[derive(Eq)]`
385.
by spion 4y ago
Nim lacks certain basics such as algebraic enums, so ...no. Also responding with a brief "so, Nim" to everyone isn't effective at doing much.
386.
by spion 4y ago
Rust with a GC (and therefore without borrow checking). I'll copy the stuff I wrote on a twitter thread recently below: Rust's borrow checker is the most innovative but also most inconvenient bit, and GCs are certainly more conven
387.
by spion 4y ago
Why is it so great? Do you think the cost of doing it in the same pull request is greater than the cost of never refactoring at all, for example?
388.
by spion 4y ago
> I've basically determined that my only option to ensure continued or improving code quality is to combine refactoring and bug fixes in the same merge request, while still keeping them in separate commits. That way whenever I touch
389.
by spion 4y ago
> If you truly need to make all of these other enhancements, do them in separate pull requests. Never fix a bug and refactor in the same pull request. Somehow, in practice, I've seen the fixing plus enhancements work better in getti
390.
by spion 4y ago
There is also the situation where someone gets a really partial understanding of a certain solution and as a result wonders why the author didn't implement a simpler solution.

More ›