There is something nice about aligning with the platform. But it risks being a straitjacket, and I think we can provide better ergonomics when it comes to streaming.

There is nothing stopping you from creating store objects which scrapes XE for the current rates or just returns rand(2):

Why can you remove it? The loader will first try to resolve @import as a relative path. If it cannot be resolved, then the loader will try to resolve @import inside node_modules.

Node Sass does not yet support your current environment indicates that the version of node-sass you are trying to run is not compatible with the version of node installed.

What happens when you look it up in a dictionary rather than as a phrase in Google? Google just catalogues other people's [mis-]uses

The automatic conversion not only confuses people but also makes the method less extensible. See [Feature #14183] for more details about the reasons for the change in behavior, and why certain implementation choices were made.

____

When mocking is deemed profitable:

Is there a way to select from multiple custom tables using ActiveRecord QueryMethods? I'm trying to replicate this SQL query using Ruby's ActiveRecord Query Methods. select employee.emplid, address.location from (....) employee, (....) address where employee.emplid = address.emplid

SQL is all about nested subqueries. It's hard to escape without creating views, but who has time to lookup that syntax and get their DBA's permission to run the DDL?!?

Worth noting that in the case where you're proxying /api/ requests to an external server in nginx you can easily do this in handle today:

If you would like to make a code change, go ahead. Fork the repository, open a pull request. Do this early, and talk about the change you want to make. Maybe we can work together on it.

A good heuristic is to not trust the libraries you did not write either.

“Who cares? Let’s just go with the style-guide” — to which my response is that caring about the details is in the heart of much of our doings. Yes, this is not a major issue; def self.method is not even a code smell. Actually, that whole debate is on the verge of being incidental. Yet the learning process and the gained knowledge involved in understanding each choice is alone worth the discussion. Furthermore, I believe that the class << self notation echoes a better, more stable understanding of Ruby and Object Orientation in Ruby. Lastly, remember that style-guides may change or be altered (carefully, though!).

I actually think this is Not Constructive, since there's no absolute rule about which pairings can be joined into a single word or hyhenated, and it's pointless having "votes" here about each specific case. Follow a style guide if you have one, or search Google Books and copy whatever the majority do. Or just make your own decision.

Of course, there is no reason why you can't use <aside> for all sidenotes, if it makes your code simpler. Think of it as civil disobedience. :)

# authenticated :user, lambda {|u| u.role == "admin"} do # root to: "admin/dashboard#show", as: :user_root # end

You can also specify constraints as a lambda:

Would it be desirable to specify the new object in a block? That would make it somewhat symmetrical to how Hash.new takes a block as a default value.

This could be an operation, a workflow, or hand-baked Ruby code completely unrelated to Trailblazer.

Or if you need to change the way the string is assembled, you can provide a proc, for example: if defined?(BetterErrors) BetterErrors.editor = proc { |file, line| "vscode://file/%{file}:%{line}" % { file: URI.encode_www_form_component(file), line: line } } end

If you want to compile youself you can pass the --with-features=huge to the configure script. Note, however, this does not enable the different language bindings because those are mostly optional and also the various GUIs need to enabled specifically, because you can have only one gui.

he goes on to talk about third party problems and how you're never guaranteed something is written correctly or that even if it is you don't know if it's the most optimal solution

he goes on to say that simple functions should not be packages because they are too small.

By treating even small functions like a black box it promotes separation of concerns and allows said black box to evolve independently.

Clearly JS and NPM have done a lot RIGHT, judging by success and programmer satisfaction. How do we keep that right and fix the wrong?

The elimination of what is arguably the biggest monoculture in the history of software development would mean that we, the community, could finally take charge of both languages and run-times, and start to iterate and grow these independently of browser/server platforms, vendors, and organizations, all pulling in different directions, struggling for control of standards, and (perhaps most importantly) freeing the entire community of developers from the group pressure of One Language To Rule Them All.

Another important MicroJS attribute is independence. Ember, Backbone—even Bootstrap to a degree–have hard dependencies on other libraries. For example, all three rely on jQuery. A good MicroJS library stands by itself with no dependencies. There are exceptions to the rule, but in general, any dependency is another small MicrojJS library.

I totally understand that there may be a majority still considering this a bad practice and thus keeping it disabled by default in production seem ok. But there could at least be an option to enable it for people who want to, no?

Better yet, send them a link to this page to help them understand why and how to make an example app:

Rails still encourages you to dump all validation errors at the top of a form, which is lulzy in this age of touchy UX

signal.to_h[:semantic]

In combination with [Track()], the :magnetic_to option allows for a neat way to spawn custom tracks outside of the conventional Railway or FastTrack schema.

  DefTrack do :paypal do
    step :charge_paypal
  end

  paypal_track = RailwayTrack do :paypal do
    step :charge_paypal
  end

now that I realize how easy it is to just manually include this in my app: <%= javascript_include_tag 'xray', nonce: true if Rails.env.development? %> I regret even wasting my time getting it to automatically look for and add a nonce to the auto-injected xray.js script

That such minimalism is possible does not mean that it is necessarily desirable

Operations don't know about HTTP or the environment. You could use an operation in Rails, Hanami, or Roda, it wouldn't know.

The new 2.1 version comes with a few necessary but reasonable changes in method signatures. As painful as that might sound to your Rails-spoiled ears, we preferred to fix design mistakes now before dragging them on forever.

The new call API is much more consistent and takes away another thing we kept explaining to new users - an indicator for a flawed API.

account.first_name = first_name if first_name.present? account.last_name = last_name if last_name.present?

It makes me happy to see people actually think about things and not just accept a shitty API.

I do think it's a common pattern that should be solved, and I am probably going to try and solve it as a Gem as opposed to simply writing code that we use in our code base

We could of course refactor our code to rename things any time we like, but we don’t do this enough in practice

considering PopOS is trying to tackle Ubuntu they really need their dual-boot setup to be a lot less tedious

if PopOS! really wants to be what Ubuntu was 10 years ago they need to step up and make dual booting easier.

that's a point, but I would say the opposite, when entering credit card data I would rathre prefer to be entirely in the Verified By Visa (Paypal) webpage (with the url easily visible in the address bar) rather that entring my credit card data in an iframe of someone's website.

This is open-source. You can always fork and maintain that fork yourself if you feel that's warranted. That's how this project started in the first place, so I know the feeling.

I'm very (VERY!) tempted to use that ppa, but without offense to it's maintainers... it's just some random ppa. If it had more "traction" I'd use it. Right now it has only 3 maintainers.

Progress is made of compromises, this implies that we have to consider not only disadvantages, but also the advantages. Advantages do very clearly outweigh disadvantages. This doesn’t mean it perfect, or that work shouldn’t continue to minimize and reduce the disadvantages, but just considering disadvantages is not the correct way.

I’m not a dev either, so no Ubuntu fork, but I will perhaps be forced to look at Debian testing, without some advantages of Ubuntu - but now that Unity is gone (and I deeply regret it), gap would not be so huge anymore…

If folks want to get together and create a snap-free remix, you are welcome to do so. Ubuntu thrives on such contribution and leadership by community members. Do be aware that you will be retreading territory that Ubuntu developers trod in 2010-14, and that you will encounter some of the same issues that led them to embrace snap-based solutions. Perhaps your solutions will be different. .debs are not perfect, snaps are not perfect. Each have advantages and disadvantages. Ubuntu tries to use the strengths of both.

The answer should be: you write a language that compiles to Go’s IR.

Svelte by itself is great, but doing a complete PWA (with service workers, etc) that runs and scales on multiple devices with high quality app-like UI controls quickly gets complex. Flutter just provides much better tooling for that out of the box IMO. You are not molding a website into an app, you are just building an app. If I was building a relatively simple web app that is only meant to run on the web, then I might still prefer Svelte in some cases.

All projects here are completely frozen, though feel free to fork and continue using them on your own.

Because of those similarities, it's possible to automate some of the changes.

This seems to be #31189 . It should be fixed when you update to v17.03.0-ce

It took us a long time for everyone to get on the same page about the requirements spanning frameworks, tooling and native implementations. Only after pushing in various concrete directions did we get a full understanding of the requirements which this proposal aims to meet.

We are working to develop better communication within TC39 and with the broader JavaScript community so that this sort of problem can be corrected sooner in the future.

This nested if blocks seems a bit untidy and confusing to me but I've also failed to come up with a clearer way.

I encounter this problem in all of my Svelte projects- feels like I'm missing something. Fighting it with absolute positioning usually forces me to re-write a lot of CSS multiple times. Is there is a better way to solve this that I've overlooked?

This is Sass based, and therefore doesn't require Svelte components

Ignore the warning, given that it's just a warning anyways. It's annoying, but it won't break your app

This is very annoying and I think there must be a better solution.

Just coming here to voice my agreement that these warnings are annoying and exist in other libraries as well. For me this happened with svelma. I didn't write the library code, so I don't have complete control over it even though I agree there is an argument to be had around whether I should be notified anyway. In either case, these warnings should be easily disabled since libraries don't always get updated over night.

Maybe it's also a bug because every warning should be ignorable? Not sure.

I would like the compiler to add a property like canIgnore: false to the warning, if the warning cannot be disabled.

However, that really doesn't mean we should expose everything else in JSON too...

In the software industry we use "dependency" to refer to the relationship between two objects. We say "looking for dependents" for relationships to dependent things and "looking for dependencies" for relationships to prerequisite things, so it gets that connotation, but the literal meaning is the relationship itself, not the object. Finding a better word is exactly the point of the question

There are other features you *could* actually polyfill, such as Array.of, Number.isNaN or Object.assign, because those don’t introduce syntax changes to the language – except that you shouldn’t.

All validators can be used independently. Inspried by functional programming paradigm, all built in validators are just functions.

FormValidation.validators.creditCard().validate({

FormValidation.formValidation(formElement

Yes, you can embed loops in it and compose lots of small repeated JSX snippets, but that almost never happens in practice because mixing the turing complete of javascript with the markup of HTML eliminates the readability of JSX so that it is actually harder to parse than a solution like hyperscript (the syntactical approach taken by virtual-dom).

Doesn't require the use of transpiler or modifications to all JS tooling ever invented.

I recommend folks use https://github.com/shama/bel instead of this package; we've been working hard on it for the past two years to make sure it has all the features you could want to write inline HTML. Hope it's good; closing for now!

However, this would lead to further divergence. Tooling that is built around the assumptions imposed by template literals wouldn't work. It would undermine the meaning of template literals. It would be necessary to define how JSX behaves within the rest of the ECMAScript grammar within the template literal anyway.

This is valid javascript! Or harmony or es6 or whatever, but importantly, it's not happening outside the js environment. This also allows us to use our standard tooling: the traceur compiler knows how to turn jsx`<div>Hello</div>`; into the equivalent browser compatible es3, and hence we can use anything the traceur compile accepts!

Svelte should make something like useEffect part of the framework so that this could work better and be less verbose.

I do like the direction Svelte is heading but I think this is one area that could be improved.

I'm suggesting there should be a way to write lifecycle related code that also responds to changing props, like how useEffect works. I think how React handles this could be a good source of inspiration.

I think it just needs a few changes, possibly non-breaking additions, to be as powerful as hooks, when it comes to abstracting lifecycle related logic, and making it easy to keep effects in sync with props.

I'm not sure I understand the problem, everything you are describing is already possible.

If Svelte came up with some kind of hooks like API maybe it could solve both these issues at once.

I’d still be interested in Svelte making things easier so I’ve opened a feature request for Reactive statement cleanup functions.

Why struggle with custom Syntax DSLs when you can use one so widely supported?

It was only pragmatic to use a tool that basically gives you that all for free.

It was clear no one was interested in what I was working towards.

Very few were interested in furthering the platform in the places they just took for granted.

I started Solid years ago before I thought anyone would be interested in using it. I only started promoting it because it had already achieved the goals I had set out for it.

This issue has been resolved in version 9.1.9

do I really have to do something like that in order to have my local modules working? it's quite impracticable to explain it to a team! there's nothing a little bit more straightforward?

DX: start sapper project; configure eslint; eslint say that svelt should be dep; update package.json; build fails with crypt error; try to figure what the hell; google it; come here (if you have luck); revert package.json; add ignore error to eslint; Maybe we should offer better solution for this.

See resolution in

Also Svelte is so great because developer do not need to worry about class names conflict, except of passing (global) classes to component (sic!).

TBH It is a bit disheartening to see this issue closed when all proposed solutions do not sufficiently solve the issue at hand, I really like svelte but if this is how feature requests are handled I am probably not going to use it in the future.

The RFC is more appropriate because it does not allow a parent to abritrarily control anything below it, that responsibility still relies on the component itself. Just because people have been passing classes round and overriding child styles for years doesn't mean it is a good choice and isn't something we wnat to encourage.

new style RFC

You must: reference each element you are extending using refs or an id add code in your oncreate and ondestroy for each element you are extending, which could become quite a lot if you have a lot of elements needing extension (anchors, form inputs, etc.)

This is where hooks/behaviors are a good idea. They clean up your component code a lot. Also, it helps a ton since you don't get create/destroy events for elements that are inside {{#if}} and {{#each}}. That could become very burdensome to try and add/remove functionality with elements as they are added/removed within a component.

But some sort of official way to do that in the language would make this nicer - and would mean I would have to worry less about destroying components when their parent is destroyed, which I'm certainly not being vigilant about in my code.

(At the point at which it does make sense to turn this into a separate Tooltip.svelte component, the extraction is a completely mechanical process that could even be automated by tooling.)

But what we should ask is "can we do better than the others".

But this is a case where it feels like we're papering over a deficiency in our language, and is the sort of thing detractors might well point to and say 'ha! see?'.

One key advantage of 'HTML-plus' languages is that you don't actually need tooling in order to be productive — most editors give you out-of-the-box support for things like syntax highlighting (though imperfect, as JavaScript expressions are treated as strings) and auto-closing tags. Tools like Emmet work with no additional setup. HTMLx should retain that benefit.

benefited from a shared set of tools for syntax highlighting, autocomplete, linting and so on.

Too much choice can be overwhelming.

As a later iteration, it might be cool to see a link between the quoted content and my comment

In fact, developers often tend to forget a simple, almost elementary fact: if users want to close the application or leave a site, they will — doesn’t matter which obstacles are placed on their path to the exit-button. The more obstacles there are the more negative the user experience will be.

So when Avdi took to air some of those grievances on Twitter, the natural thing happened that always happens when you feel your work is attacked: The core contributor group got defensive! That’s a mischaracterization! Where are the completed bug reports!? You know the drill, if you’ve ever worked on something, poured your heart into it, and then seen it criticized online. There’s that immediate, knee-jerk reaction of a sting. But it doesn’t have to sting.

"Splitters can be lumped more easily than lumpers can be split"

For example, if error messages in two narrowly defined classes behave in the same way, the classes can be easily combined. But if some messages in a broad class behave differently, every object in the class must be examined before the class can be split. This illustrates the principle that "splits can be lumped more easily than lumps can be split".

Steroids used after the first 3 to 4 days after injury do not affect wound healing as severely as when they are used in the immediate postoperative period.

Fibroblasts stimulated by growth factors can produce type I collagen and glycosaminoglycans (e.g., chondroitin sulfates), which adhere to the wound surface to permit epithelial cell migration, as well as adhesive ligands (e.g., the matrix protein fibronectin), which promote cell adhesion.

I enjoy dissent and debate among commenters, and criticism of my views is also always welcome; you are even free to call me an assclown, a dupe, a partisan ignoramus — whatever you like, as long as you don't insult other commenters.