I think the fact that it's so simple to add, makes the case to just keep it in userland.

For example, your application should work offline, but it doesn’t mean that you must set-up a background queue or store your data in a persistent storage – a offline message (e.g. “You’re offline, check your network status.”) is enough.

However, this coalescing was very complicated, both in the specification and implementations, due to the dynamism of computed property names for accessors. Coalescing was a big source of overhead (e.g., in terms of code size) in polyfill implementations of "Stage 2" decorators.

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

And I'm all for not adding a gazillion flags to to an elegant library.

I don't want Svelte to go out of its way to try to catch all these edge cases. It would require lots of fragile heuristics in the compiler. I want a solid compiler I can trust, not something magic but often out of service. I want it the simplest possible.

We are very close to full inline components (with css, js logic, and templates).

Solid keeps it simple

However, if you want to create a backend API that is meant to be consumed only by your frontend, then you don't need REST nor GraphQL — RPC, such as Wildcard, is enough.

Lets not extend the framework with yet another syntax

"AOO is not, and isn't designed to be, the 'super coolest open source office suite with all the latest bells and whistles,'" Jagielski continued. "Our research shows that a 'basic,' functional office suite, which is streamlined with a 'simple' and uncluttered, uncomplicated UI, serves an incredible under-represented community.

A simplified pricing and packaging (PnP) strategy serves customers in the optimal way per the industry best practice. More SKUs lead to a more complex PnP model as a company scales, which eventually causes huge confusion to customers.

Regardless of what or how much you order, this is your flat shipping cost.

I think this goes against the Keep It Simple mentality and the Low Level Of Shame that we should have when we contribute.

The extra “space” from vertical navigation might encourage some designers to go overboard and clutter the navigation menu; as with top, horizontal navigation, stick to only the top four or five links within the site.

I don't think this is a common enough use case to warrant this change (which would need documentation and tests if it were to be accepted). Overall, the goal has been to simplify the validators, and prune out edge cases. This use case can be easily accomplished by just using a method instead.

Markdown provides shorthand for the most common features of HTML. One of its best features is that you can always fallback to the full syntax for HTML. This includes doing things that aren't included in markdown. Personally, I like that markdown is concise and includes very little fluff. It makes it easier to learn the whole set of shorthand. This is particularly important if you expect someone else to read your code later.

minitest doesn't reinvent anything that ruby already provides, like: classes, modules, inheritance, methods. This means you only have to learn ruby to use minitest and all of your regular OO practices like extract-method refactorings still apply.

Don't use it! Writing simple assertions (and Minitest way of transforming them to expectations) is almost always a better idea anyway. Work with your favourite library authors to start with assertions and add matchers for convenience and not the other way around. Keep it simple.

I discuss the flaws of this in regards to spreadsheets in Spreadsheets Are Sabotaging Your Business. In brief, when people inevitably started using the more complex formulas available, they unknowingly broke the fundamental design concept of paper spreadsheets: that humans can understand what’s happening between the cells.