There has to be a better way for us to manage Javascript build/run scripts. Everything for this platform seems tacked together. quotes with escaped quotes and npm builds to call other 'npm run' builds.. This is getting pretty painful.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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?'.