themihai

35 ms·

391.
by themihai 10y ago
The lack of choice has to be hated. Some hate JS just for that.
392.
by themihai 10y ago
Well, 5G is not that far. Remember when SPA was considered too "fat"? Now most of the web apps are SPA with few MBs to download.
393.
by themihai 10y ago
That's what I find great too, though for some reasons they put too much emphasis on JS-wasm compatibility and less on language support(i.e DOM or GC are considered "unicorn" features). I'm pretty sure 90% of the web deve
394.
by themihai 10y ago
I'm afraid that without DOM access and GC it won't get much traction or testing as far as the community is concerned. Did anyone took wasm seriously?(i.e run their main external/internal app on wasm as a beta version)
395.
by themihai 10y ago
Are you sure? Have you used appengine or any of their cloud libraries? Just found out that some of the services I wrote 3 years ago don't work anymore due various breaking changes. It also very much applies to cloud services themselves
396.
by themihai 10y ago
GCP has always felt like a forever beta product. On top of that you get a lot of lockin so I would never recommend GCP for a long term project.
397.
by themihai 10y ago
All this makes me think a war is being cooked up though the stance on Europe doesn't make any sense to me. I thought China is the "issue" now not EU which still pays the price of the latest NATO war(s).
398.
by themihai 10y ago
The way services are deprecated and prices change makes me feel you are a product, at least if you are early adopter.
399.
by themihai 10y ago
WASM looks like the most exciting development for the web.
400.
by themihai 10y ago
People often want to try it for a while before to set it as default. Same happened to me when I changed my default browser. All being said I think a rebranding would make it more competitive.
401.
by themihai 10y ago
It's just too much to type.
402.
by themihai 10y ago
Did you consider changing the domain name?
403.
by themihai 10y ago
Compatibility with Algolia would be a great stand alone product in itself.
404.
by themihai 10y ago
The description is misleading. Once you check the docs it becomes clear that it's not a drop-in algolia replacement.(i.e API comp)
405.
by themihai 10y ago
So once you switch the browser , mozilla website stops working...
406.
by themihai 10y ago
You may compare apples to oranges because the CPU and other components may be slightly different(usually they are older and cheaper on the mac). It's a known fact that Apple has the highest(by far) margins on laptops. Apple used to be
407.
by themihai 10y ago
They are expensive and underpowered. I used to get the top of the line macbook but it's not worth it anymore. It's starts to look like the John Sculley era. If it wasn't for the pro audio support I would jump on the linux b
408.
by themihai 10y ago
You turn this into a blame game. If it's pure Swift then 100% of its source code should be Swift. This particular repository is mixed with C libs. From the dictionary: Pure - not mixed or adulterated with any other substance or materia
409.
by themihai 10y ago
I can't agree with that. If you develop a videoplayer and you state it's pure Swift I think it's fair to assume the codecs and other core components (i.e. dsp) of the said player are not imported C libs. How can it be pure Sw
410.
by themihai 10y ago
A 10th anniversary model would have been a nice surprise...
411.
by themihai 10y ago
How is this pure swift? What about the codecs?
412.
by themihai 10y ago
I was hopping for a raspberry compute module alternative rather than another PC dongle. Otherwise I would expect some very high specs(i.e thunderbolt, 4k etc) but I think it's not the case either.
413.
by themihai 10y ago
That's right but in my defence that's really a 3.1 system as you have lf, rf and center in a single speaker. It's also worth to note that lf, rf and center speakers are the most demanding/used channels so IMHO the proble
414.
by themihai 10y ago
Is there ANY multi channel client? I tell you: no! And it can't really be because Apple specifically limits AirPlay output to one single destination. It's because wifi sucks and as it is and it just can't work on multi channe
415.
by themihai 10y ago
Ok, but can you play multi-channel? Like a 5.1 system in a home theater ? As far as I know it's not possible. Multiple speakers playing the same content is not really multi channel.
416.
by themihai 10y ago
Which Angular? Is Angular 2 really the same framework?
417.
by themihai 10y ago
Airplay works on top of wifi and it can't play multichannel audio. Not to mention the crappy experience when the video is "buffering". Hopefully this standard will fix such issues but I have big doubts.
418.
by themihai 10y ago
Most likely all of them.
419.
by themihai 10y ago
I thought sonos can't even do multi channel audio. It's just a kind of mesh network. Wisa was supposed to fix that but for some reasons it seems it failed to get mainstreem
420.
by themihai 10y ago
I'm wondering how this compares to tsn (aka audio video bridge[0]). Their conclusion was wifi is not reliable enough for time sensitive applications. Great av networking is not only about clock sync anyway so this looks more like a hal

More ›