This motto has been very much discussed in the Perl community, and eventually extended to There’s more than one way to do it, but sometimes consistency is not a bad thing either (TIMTOWTDIBSCINABTE, pronounced Tim Toady Bicarbonate).[1] In contrast, part of the Zen of Python is, "There should be one— and preferably only one —obvious way to do it."

Now consider we want to handle numbers in our known value set: const KNOWN_VALUES = Object.freeze(['a', 'b', 'c', 1, 2, 3]) function isKnownValue(input?: string | number) { return typeof(input) === 'string' && KNOWN_VALUES.includes(input) } Uh oh! This TypeScript compiles without errors, but it's not correct. Where as our original "naive" approach would have worked just fine. Why is that? Where is the breakdown here? It's because TypeScript's type system got in the way of the developer's initial intent. It caused us to change our code from what we intended to what it allowed. It was never the developer's intention to check that input was a string and a known value; the developer simply wanted to check whether input was a known value - but wasn't permitted to do so.

You particular circumstances may or may not warrant a way different from what lhunath (and other users) deem "best practices".

Remember that in the end, especially in scripting, there always are more than one way to skin a cat, but some ways are more portable, more reliable, make it simpler to handle error cases, parse the output, etc.

Even if the damned thing would be really helpful in the long run, I can't give it the time and attention needed to make it work again ...  Not right now. And ultimately never.

They possess an unwavering belief in “one right way.”

There is nothing wrong with building your own “service layer”, and many companies have left the Traiblazer track in the past years due to problems they had and that we think we now fixed.

It's difficult because it's a case-by-case basis - there is no one right answer so it falls into subjective arguments.

Depending on what other component libraries you’ve used, you may be used to handling events by passing callback functions to component properties, or using a special event syntax – Svelte supports both, though one is usually more appropriate than the other depending on your situation. This post explains both ways.

Jbuilder gives you a simple DSL for declaring JSON structures that beats manipulating giant hash structures. This is particularly helpful when the generation process is fraught with conditionals and loops.

Modules from the following layer can require anything from all the previous layers, but not vice versa.

but everything they were doing started to make sense

Can't upvote this enough. It is highly irritating to see language destroyed (and we wonder why kids bastardize the language..).

I went against the grain, applying other tools that people have written over the years to directly perform the job at hand which do not involve entering a program for awk or a shell to run, with answers like https://unix.stackexchange.com/a/574309/5132 and https://unix.stackexchange.com/a/578242/5132 . Others have done similar. https://unix.stackexchange.com/a/584274/5132 and https://unix.stackexchange.com/a/569600/5132 are (for examples) answers that show alternative tools to answers employing shell script and (yet again) awk programs, namely John A. Kunze's jot and rs (reshape), which have been around since 4.2BSD for goodness' sake!

There's a few other questions on StackOverflow regarding how to structure YAML files for i18n, and I don't think there is a 'right' answer to your question. If it works for you, then great! I would say that any answer you get will be completely subjective, and more about i18n and translation management rather than anything specifically to do with the Rails way.

there's no reasonable way to communicate effectively with the less technically minded without acquiescing to the nontechnical misuse of the term "hacker"

The more easily relabeled of the two uses of the term "hacker" is the malicious security cracker: it is not only the more recent phenomenon to acquire that label, but also the one whose meaning is most easily evoked by an alternative term. This is why, when you read an article of mine that talks about malicious security crackers, I use the term "malicious security cracker"

We want better children—but not by turning procreation into manufacture or by altering their brains to gain them an edge over their peers. We want to perform better in the activities of life—but not by becoming mere creatures of our chemists or by turning ourselves into tools designed to win or achieve in inhuman ways. We want longer lives—but not at the cost of living carelessly or shallowly with diminished aspiration for living well, and not by becoming people so obsessed with our own longevity that we care little about the next generations. We want to be happy—but not because of a drug that gives us happy feelings without the real loves, attachments, and achievements that are essential for true human flourishing.