984 Matching Annotations
  1. Feb 2021
    1. step :direct_debit

      I don't think we would/should really want to make this the "success" (Right) path and :credit_card be the "failure" (Left) track.

      Maybe it's okay to repurpose Left and Right for something other than failure/success ... but only if we can actually change the default semantic of those signals/outputs. Is that possible? Maybe there's a way to override or delete the default outputs?

    1. While Trailblazer offers you abstraction layers for all aspects of Ruby On Rails, it does not missionize you. Wherever you want, you may fall back to the "Rails Way" with fat models, monolithic controllers, global helpers, etc. This is not a bad thing, but allows you to step-wise introduce Trailblazer's encapsulation in your app without having to rewrite it.
    1. Personal todo lists don’t depend on others using the same system (no network effects)

      They don't unless you're building a wiki or commonplace book that can interact with those of others. (Roam research isn't doing this---yet, but they should.) Ideally small building block pieces will allow it to dovetail with other systems that could potentially do the same thing.

    1. {a: 1, b: 2, c: 3, d: 4} => {a:, b:, **rest} # a == 1, b == 2, rest == {:c=>3, :d=>4}

      equivalent in javascript:

      {a, b, ...rest} = {a: 1, b: 2, c: 3, d: 4}
      

      Not a bad replacement for that! I still find javascript's syntax a little more easily readable and natural, but given that we can't use the same syntax (probably because it would be incompatible with existing syntax rules that we can't break for compatibility reasons, unfortunately), this is a pretty good compromise/solution that they've come up with.

    1. The reason Reform does updating attributes and validation in the same step is because I wanna reduce public methods. This is to save users from having to remember state.

      I see what he means, but what would you call this (tag)? "have to remember state"? maybe "have to remember" is close enough

      Or maybe order is important / do things in the right order is all we need to describe the problem/need.

    1. p. 217:

      We also keep a higher percentage of our assets in cash than most financial advisors would recommend --- something around 20% of the value of our assets outside the value of our house.

      Compare this to my current allotment.

  2. Jan 2021
    1. Moving DOM elements around made me anxious and I wanted to preserve natural tab order without resorting to setting tabindex, so I also made a flexbox version that never moves DOM elements around. I think it's the superior solution, at least for the layouts I was going for. https://github.com/wickning1/svelte-components/blob/master/src/FlexCardLayout.svelte
    1. Popper for Svelte with actions, no wrapper components or component bindings required! Other Popper libraries for Svelte (including the official @popperjs/svelte library) use a wrapper component that takes the required DOM elements as props. Not only does this require multiple bind:this, you also have to pollute your script tag with multiple DOM references. We can do better with Svelte actions!
  3. Dec 2020
    1. No more waiting around for pull requests to be merged and published. No more forking repos just to fix that one tiny thing preventing your app from working.

      This could be both good and bad.

      potential downside: If people only fix things locally, then they may be less inclined/likely to actually/also submit a merge request, and therefore it may be less likely that this actually (ever) gets fixed upstream. Which is kind of ironic, considering the stated goal "No more waiting around for pull requests to be merged and published." But if this obviates the need to create a pull request (does it), then this could backfire / work against that goal.

      Requiring someone to fork a repo and push up a fix commit -- although a little extra work compared to just fixing locally -- is actually a good thing overall, for the community/ecosystem.

      Ah, good, I see they touched on some of these points in the sections:

      • Benefits of patching over forking
      • When to fork instead
    1. Some devs prefer Svelte’s minimal approach that defers problems to userland, encouraging more innovation, choice, and fragmentation, and other devs prefer a more fully integrated toolkit with a well-supported happy path.

      tag?: what scope of provided features / recommended happy path is needed?

    2. It’s worth mentioning that Svelte limits its scope to being only a UI component framework. Like React, it provides the view layer, but it has more batteries included with its component-scoped CSS and extensible stores for state management. Others like Angular and Vue provide a more all-in-one solution with official routers, opinionated state management, CLIs, and more. Sapper is Svelte’s official app framework that adds routing, server-side rendering, code splitting, and some other essential app features, but it has no opinions about state management and beyond. Some devs prefer Svelte’s minimal approach that defers problems to userland, encouraging more innovation, choice, and fragmentation, and other devs prefer a more fully integrated toolkit with a well-supported happy path.

      tag?: what scope of provided features / recommended happy path is needed?

    1. p. 198:

      Given any five points on a sphere, show that some four of them lie on a hemisphere that includes its boundary.

      I'll admit, I already looked at the hint for this problem, and yes, my initial approach did indeed consist of trying to find the 'worst' configuration.

      I can think of two ways to determine whether or not two points on a sphere lie within the same hemisphere:

      • First off, since any two points on a sphere may be connected by a great circle, they're in the same hemisphere if they're separated by no more than \(\frac{\tau}{2}\) radians along this shortest path.
      • Equivalently, the length of the line segment connecting them must be less than or equal to \(2r\), where \(r\) is the radius of the sphere.

      One other note:

      • It's always possible to divide the sphere in half in such a way that any two points lie within the same hemisphere. (This is a corollary of the first point, above. Note that two antipodal points must necessarily fall on the boundary of such a division.)

      So, I have a picture in my mind of the sphere divided into eight regions of equal area by way of three great circles which intersect one another at right angles. (Think the Equator, the Prime Meridian, and a third great circle drawn through the poles at 90 degrees longitude.) My thinking now tends more toward combinatorics and the pigeonhole principle than geometry proper.

  4. Nov 2020
    1. Some of the verbs implemented by systemctl are designed to provide a high-level overview in a human readable format. All that information is available over dbus, and/or journalctl, systemctl show. We could provide that information in json format, but there's a second problem. Information and format of information printed by e.g. systemctl status is not stable. Since the output is not suitable for programmatic consumption anyway, there's no need to provide it in a machine readable format.
  5. Oct 2020
    1. Form validation can get complex (synchronous validations, asynchronous validations, record validations, field validations, internationalization, schemas definitions...). To cope with these challenges we will leverage this into Fonk and Fonk Final Form adaptor for a React Final Form seamless integration.
    1. 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
    1. Yeah I see what you're saying. In my case, I had a group of classes that relied on each other but they were all part of one conceptual "module" so I made a new file that imports and exposes all of them. In that new file I put the imports in the right order and made sure no code accesses the classes except through the new interface.
    1. Doing so also means adding empty import statements to guarantee correct order of evaluation of modules (in ES modules, evaluation order is determined statically by the order of import declarations, whereas in CommonJS – and environments that simulate CommonJS by shipping a module loader, i.e. Browserify and Webpack – evaluation order is determined at runtime by the order in which require statements are encountered).

      Here: dynamic loading (libraries/functions) meaning: at run time

    2. Specifically, since Root, Rule and AtRule all extend Container, it's essential that Container is evaluated (and therefore, in the context of a Rollup bundle, included) first. In order to do this, input.js (which is the 'gateway' to all the PostCSS stuff) must import root.js, root.js must import rule.js before it imports container.js, and rule.js must import at-rule.js before it imports container.js. Having those imports ensures that container.js doesn't then try to place Root, Rule or AtRule ahead of itself in the bundle.
    1. I'm okay with an overall design that allows people to plugin the parts they need in order to be able to generically support a compile-to-javascript language, but to bake in support for one singular solution because its popular is simply bad engineering.
    1. it also allows for more divergence in how people write there code and where they put their logic, making different svelte codebases potentially even more different due to fewer constraints. This last point is actually something I really value, I read a lot of Svelte code by a lot of different people and broadly speaking things look the same and are in the same places.
    1. 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.
    1. A “solution” to GR is more like a model in logic: it may satisfy a theory’s axioms but have other properties that are contingent (unless the theory is categorical, meaning that all of its models are isomorphic).
    1. Confidence to express ignorance is a super power. One good way I hone this skill is by saying “Nothing to add” when I have nothing to add, instead of repeating what other people said.
  6. leanprover.github.io leanprover.github.io
  7. Sep 2020
    1. setContext / getContext can only be used once at component init, so how do you share your API result through context? Related: how would you share those API results if the call was made outside of a Svelte component, where setContext would be even more out of the question (and the API call would arguably be better located, for separation of concerns matters)? Well, put a store in your context.
    1. let:hovering={active}

      It seems like it should be the other way around:

      let:active={hovering}
      

      to make it look like a regular let assignment.

      It's only when you consider what/how let:hovering on its own means/works that it makes a bit more sense that it is the way it is. When it's on its own, it's a little clearer that it's saying to "make use of" an available slot prop having the given name. (Very much like bind, where the LHS is also the name of the prop we're getting the data from.) Obviously we have to identify which prop we're wanting to use/pull data from, so that seems like the most essential/main/only thing the name could be referring to. (Of course, as a shortcut (in this shorthand version), and for consistency, it also names the local variable with the same name, but it wouldn't have to.)

      Another even simpler way to remember / look at it:

      1. Everything on the left hand of an prop/attribute [arg] corresponds to something in the component/element that you're passing the [arg] to. Usually it's a prop that you're passing in, but in this case (and in the case of bind:) it's more like a prop that you're pulling out of that component, and attaching to. Either way, the name on the LHS always corresponds to an export let inside that named component.
      2. Everything on the right side corresponds to a name/variable in the local scope. Usually it passes the value of that variable, but in the case of a let: or bind: it actually "passes the variable by reference" (not the value) and associates that local variable with the LHS (the "remote" side).

      Another example is bind: You're actually binding the RHS to the value of the exported prop named on the LHS, but when you read it (until you get used to it?) it can look like it's saying bind a variable named LHS to the prop on the RHS.