graffiti can perform a number of functions: marking a gang's turf, puttingforth political messages, expressing the individual writer's identity,expressing grief for someone killed or anger at an enemy" (

Boilerplate is only boilerplate if it's the same everywhere, which it shouldn't be.

But why do we return 0? Why not 1? Why not None? And while None in most cases is as bad (or even worse) than the exceptions, turns out we should heavily rely on business logic and use-cases of this function.

No one has requested it before so it's certainly not something we're planning to add.

To give a little more context, structures like this often come up in my work when dealing with NoSQL datastores, especially ones that rely heavily on JSON, like Firebase, where a records unique ID isn't part of the record itself, just a key that points to it. I think most Ruby/Rails projects tend towards use cases where these sort of datastores aren't appropriate/necessary, so it makes sense that this wouldn't come up as quickly as other structures.

Consequently, you act irresponsibly when you adopt any programming practice simply because "that's the way you're supposed to do things."

My point is that you should not program blindly. You must understand the havoc a feature or idiom can wreak. In doing so, you're in a much better position to decide whether you should use that feature or idiom. Your choices should be both informed and pragmatic.

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

The trouble with leaving the verb off is that if a user experiencing low or no vision is browsing with the aid of a screen reader, they may not be able to determine what the noun is for. Screen readers can scrape the current page and create lists by content type (headings, links, buttons, etc.) for easer navigation. Static text that is placed in visual proximity to the download links will not come along for the ride if accessed via this method. While it might seem redundant to show the word “download” over and over again, including it can go a long way to providing context for users navigating without visual aids, or who have zoomed the page’s content to the point where the layout may not communicate the visual relationship.

One lesser-appreciated user-behaviour is when a user would like to choose an alternative download location. On a download link, your user can right-click -> “save link as…” and place the download directly into a folder of their choice. Handy if you want something to go directly to removable media, for example. On a download button, there’s no such option.

Traditional online funnels — more often than not — require you to have a separate:Content management system (ex. WordPress, Joomla)Web host (ex. SiteGround, Bluehost)Page builder (ex. Elementor, Beaver)Email autoresponder (ex. MailChimp, Aweber, GetResponse)Order formShopping cartWeb analyticsOther marketing tools

On the other hand, handling form validation on your own can be tempting, but you have to cover scenarios like:

If you want to implement a form with a superb User Experience, you have to take care of many variables:

Svelte will not offer a generic way to support style customizing via contextual class overrides (as we'd do it in plain HTML). Instead we'll invent something new that is entirely different. If a child component is provided and does not anticipate some contextual usage scenario (style wise) you'd need to copy it or hack around that via :global hacks.

Explicit interfaces are preferable, even if it places greater demand on library authors to design both their components and their style interfaces with these things in mind.

This has already forced me to forgo Svelte Material because I would like to add some actions to their components but I cannot and it does not make sense for them to cater to my specific use-case by baking random stuff into the library used by everyone.

The point of the feature is to not rely on the third-party author of the child component to add a prop for every action under the sun. Rather, they could just mark a recipient for actions on the component (assuming there is a viable target element), and then consumers of the library could extend the component using whatever actions they desire.

Your LazyLoad image is now inextensible. What if you want to add a class? Perhaps the author of LazyLoad thought of that and sets className onto the <img>. But will the author consider everything? Perhaps if we get {...state} attributes.