spion

11 ms·

61.
by spion 2y ago
This is fascinating, but I'm not sure this is the reason (or a good excuse for?) why software estimation is a mess right now. If you look at standard industry practice, the concept of "probability" rarely enters the discussio
62.
by spion 2y ago
I think the reason it wasn't talked about before is because React used to be better / have less unnecessary complexity than it does today. The front-end pain has grown by an order of magnitude since. I don't think HTMX addres
63.
by spion 2y ago
You can use the "dropping a hash" method (patio11 has used this). As you progress your work, you publish a hash of it using a service trusted by everyone to correctly identify the researchers and timestamp their hashes. If someone
64.
by spion 3y ago
relevant issue, which is at the crux of this problem: https://github.com/tc39/proposal-record-tuple/issues/387 and which shows that a symbol based protocol was the kind of approach that could've worked f
65.
by spion 3y ago
While that could help, I don't see why records and tuples are necessary. We added symbols precisely to deal with this issue in a backward compatible way. We could add symbols for set/map protocols using `equals` and `getHashCode`
66.
by spion 3y ago
Maybe its worth looking into land value tax again.
67.
by spion 3y ago
Do they force 2FA only or phones as well? If its just 2FA there is an option to use a TOTP application (e.g. andOTP for Android)
68.
by spion 3y ago
Which they can fix by updating the lock file.
69.
by spion 3y ago
A JS standard library would be a drop in the bucket compared to the size and complexity of the DOM libraries and implementing a usably performant JS engine. Yes it should be done carefully. There are also plenty of examples of how this can
70.
by spion 3y ago
Switch to a "softer" interpretation of "*" that rather than blocking unpublishing of every version, allows unpublishing as long as one version is still available.
71.
by spion 3y ago
A softer interpretation is possible. "*" should mean that the dependency cannot unpublish all packages and must have at least one version available.
72.
by spion 3y ago
A well designed JS standard library that also includes a set of protocols (interfaces) would make such a huge difference in QoL. It would also likely be the biggest contributor to reducing bundle sizes. The protocols (iterable, async iterab
73.
by spion 3y ago
AFAIK, gene links have only been found for persistent cough and shortness of breath, but not other long covid symptoms. Protection from vaccines has ranged (IIRC) from none to about 50% reduction in probability
74.
by spion 3y ago
> well some guy named 'somedude82' in an unpopular HN post compared it to npm It implies that the JS ecosystem is well known for behavior just like the InfluxDB example - its the benchmark example of such behavior. That was my
75.
by spion 3y ago
> I honestly think css-in-js solutions that inject styles into the document head at runtime like Styled Components and Emotion were never really sustainable or performant, and server components just revealed the inadequacy of these techn
76.
by spion 3y ago
> You don't think you're maybe contorting yourself to make some of these arguments work? First of all, I still prefer TypeScript to Python when it comes to language features. So no, I'm not defending my favorite language h
77.
by spion 3y ago
One last bit > You certainly could've submitted this during the RFC on hooks. There was a lengthy discussion before the design was finalized (which another commenter mentioned when you posted that comment to HN). There were RFCs sub
78.
by spion 3y ago
> I disagree with your characterization of async in JS. First of all you're tossing in a bunch of fringe concurrency techniques to distort history. There have been three mainstream ways of doing concurrency in the three or so decade
79.
by spion 3y ago
This is not the definition of backward compatibility I have in mind. Backward compatibility also includes "continuity", that is the new features flow from previous design. React has been redesigned 2 times and now with server comp
80.
by spion 3y ago
The problem isn't just react though. Most libraries in JS land just don't prioritise interfaces, compatibility and colaboration, instead opting for a "I'm just gonna build my own thing and not care about anything else ou
81.
by spion 3y ago
You can't use more than one context in React classes "React" has been around for 10 years but in practice its been 3.5 different frameworks - the original - the class version (still close enough to original) - hooks version (
82.
by spion 3y ago
My point is that this sort of thing doesn't happen so lightly in other ecosystems. And the "you don't have to use it" excuse isn't used when the project clearly wants to move in that direction: - others will jump on
83.
by spion 3y ago
here is a sample of well-meaning maintainers franatically trying to deal with situations like these and maintain some semblance of compatibility https://phryneas.de/react-server-components-controversy
84.
by spion 3y ago
I've spent 12 years in the JS ecosystem. It really is that bad and it got significantly worse in the past couple of years. It was hard to see it however until I tried working in some of the newer ecosystems like Elixir, Rust, Go. Thing
85.
by spion 3y ago
I'm surprised they didn't mention SQL Server's "FOR JSON", which doesn't solve the problem they're solving entirely (n:n cannot be deduplicated AFAIK) but it can get you 90% of the way https://l
86.
by spion 3y ago
What are you refering to, more specifically, from Codd's original paper?
87.
by spion 3y ago
IMO the title is actually pretty great. Yes its not very precise, but on the positive side its catchy and gets the point across quick.
88.
by spion 3y ago
Abstractions are not cheap and disposable. If 5 places use one abstraction, it takes at least (1) 5x the effort to dispose of them compared to changing one of those places. (1) At least 5, because sometimes its worse. Example: lets say you
89.
by spion 3y ago
If you don't mind, I'd like to propose an alternative list: - Most of our abstractions are bad, even those we think are good. The good ones are largely already in our libraries (although even that isn't always the case unfort
90.
by spion 3y ago
You can also (surprisingly) ask ChatGPT for validation. The part of the LLM that activates when solving problems is going to be different than the one that activates when reviewing.

More ›