Vendor lock-in is everywhere — Wix, Shopify, no-code platforms, even overly restrictive SaaS tools. If you haven’t written the code, don’t truly own or control the product and data, and can’t deploy or host it wherever and however you choose — then you haven’t actually built anything.

So ActionCable needs Redis! Is this the first time Rails is aligning with a vendor product? Why not abstract it like AR/AJ?

vendor/assets is for assets that are owned by outside entities, such as code for JavaScript plugins and CSS frameworks.

While Trailblazer offers you abstraction layers for all aspects of Ruby On Rails, it does not missionize you. Wherever you want, you may fall back to the "Rails Way" with fat models, monolithic controllers, global helpers, etc. This is not a bad thing, but allows you to step-wise introduce Trailblazer's encapsulation in your app without having to rewrite it.

As was mentioned in the comments above, the material design spec for buttons specifies that the text should be uppercase, but you can easily override its CSS property: paper-button { text-transform: none; }

enables passive event listeners by default for some events (see list below). It basically will set { passive: true } automatically every time you declare a new event listener.

@use "@material/theme" with (  $primary: #FEDBD0,  $on-primary: #442C2E);

You could totally just write your own name and not use the name in package.json, this template is made so the users wouldn't need to think about the UMD build.

Just coming here to voice my agreement that these warnings are annoying and exist in other libraries as well. For me this happened with svelma. I didn't write the library code, so I don't have complete control over it even though I agree there is an argument to be had around whether I should be notified anyway. In either case, these warnings should be easily disabled since libraries don't always get updated over night.

Maybe it's also a bug because every warning should be ignorable? Not sure.

I would like the compiler to add a property like canIgnore: false to the warning, if the warning cannot be disabled.

To silence circular dependencies warnings for let's say moment library use: // rollup.config.js import path from 'path' const onwarn = warning => { // Silence circular dependency warning for moment package if ( warning.code === 'CIRCULAR_DEPENDENCY' && !warning.importer.indexOf(path.normalize('node_modules/moment/src/lib/')) ) { return } console.warn(`(!) ${warning.message}`) }

Would you mind adding it to the vendor README.md with a note to this commit so we remember?

One thing that would certainly be a game-changer would be some form of standardized RCS end-to-end encryption that allows secure messages to be sent outside Google Messages.

What I don't like is how they've killed so many useful extensions without any sane method of overriding their decisions.

I know, you don't trust Mozilla but do you also not trust the developer? I absolutely do! That is the whole point of this discussion. Mozilla doesn't trust S3.Translator or jeremiahlee but I do. They blocked page-translator for pedantic reasons. Which is why I want the option to override their decision to specifically install few extensions that I'm okay with.

If you don't—or can't—lock your users in, the best way to compete is to innovate at a breakneck pace. Let's use Google Search as an example. It's a product that cannot lock users in: users don't have to install software to use it; they don't have to upload data to use it; they don't have to sign two-year contracts; and if they decide to try another search engine, they merely type it into their browser's location bar, and they're off and running.

it is far preferable to spend your engineering effort on innovation than it is to build bigger walls and stronger doors that prevent users from leaving