It feels great to get an email from someone you care about. Or a newsletter you enjoy. Or an update from a service you like. That’s how email used to feel all the time.

Now email feels like a chore, rather than a joy. Something you fall behind on. Something you clear out, not cherish. Rather than delight in it, you deal with it.

HEY’s fresh approach transforms email into something you want to use, not something you’re forced to deal with.

And on any given day, developing with Svelte and its reactive nature is simply a dream to use. You can tell Svelte to track state changes on practically anything using the $: directive. And it’s quite likely that your first reactive changes will produce all the expected UI results.

I never thought I’d enjoy a how-to plant yard video but I did...bravo sir! And thank you!

Not enjoying Xcode, Amir used RubyMotion instead. Amir had real-world experience with Xcode and Objective-C, but didn't like it at all. Amir also has a Ruby background and went with RubyMotion to build A Dark Room. The command-line interface, the testing framework, the gems libraries and the CocoaPods integration and the freedom to use any text editor contributed to his decision.

ProMotion is a RubyMotion gem that makes iOS development more like Ruby and less like Objective-C.

The codebase for Pomodone makes more sense to me in Svelte, not React. I find it easier to navigate and work with.

React and Svelte are very similar in many ways, but what I've found is that in all the little ways that they are different, I prefer Svelte.

Currently, I’m working on designing the interfaces and it’s real fun!

This is my absolute favorite feature ever and the official reason for (re-)writing Trailblazer 2.1. It makes me happy every time I use it.

People really don't stress enough the importance of enjoying what you're programming. It aids creativity, makes you a better teammate, and makes it significantly easier to enter a state of flow. It should be considered an important factor in choosing a web development framework (or lack thereof). Kudos!

I don't think this is what really matters at the end, since whatever is the implementation the goal should be to provide a library that people actually like to use.

To demonstrate this problem, he asked participants to rate two numbers on how large they were on a scale of 1-to-10 where 1 was “very very small” and 10 was “very very large”. One group of participants were asked to rate the number 9 and another group was asked to rate the number 221 (Birnbaum 1999). Participants in this between-subjects design gave the number 9 a mean rating of 5.13 and the number 221 a mean rating of 3.10. In other words, they rated 9 as larger than 221! According to Birnbaum, this difference is because participants spontaneously compared 9 with other one-digit numbers (in which case it is relatively large) and compared 221 with other three-digit numbers (in which case it is relatively small).