notapenny

For me it's usually just a cost thing. Some movies I just know I'm going to watch multiple times, certain ones even annually. Clicking buy generally already makes sense if you're going to watch it twice. Wouldn't buy it from the PS store though, it seems like such a niche outside their core business that I'd be worried they would pull exactly what they pulled here.

Take your time.

Just flat counter fields are terrible in audio software interfaces. Sliders and knobs give you visual feedback of where you are along a line and an easy way to quickly increase/decrease speed when adjusting.

Most software I use does still show some numeric value somewhere, either around the element when changing it, or in some other panel. This way you get some more information than in the hardware equivalent if you need more granular control. Its particularly nice if they allow you to click/double-click for editing values.

From my perspective as a user, knobs convey exactly what I need. Mostly I don't care about the exact number, just about what position something is in. Knobs behaving like sliders is fine. I'm not physically moving a knob, I might be moving it with a mouse or touchpad. You can't stray with a physical control the way you can with a digital one. And they allow interface designers to put a lot more information on screen where space is at a premium.

Honestly, just go download a trial version of something like Reaper or Reason and go make some music. You'll get a better feel.

Yes it would. People have no choice but to read college textbooks. They do have a choice when it comes to the usability of your site. You might not care, but you are not your users.

Oh, it opens a little toolbar with that option. I literally just discovered this because of your comment.

This highlights my experience with these controls pretty well... I have no idea what is n-finger touchable or holdable anymore and I just stumble into features accidentally.

Couldn't you use something like GitLens for that? I haven't used it in a bit but IIRC it lets you see your changes versus any branch pretty easily. Personally if I do feel the need for a view of what I've touched, I just open up a draft PR.

You have no idea whether or not I lack those. If you're going to make a blanket ad-hominem statement like that, at least don't follow it up by agreeing with my point.

Nobody is telling you to build things that just "have merit". Just because you don't like them, it doesn't mean that great things weren't built off the back of Oracle and in JavaScript.

If some Oracle product is the best pick for the task, or JavaScript is the best pick for the task... will you pick it? Or will you whine about what you dedicated your life to?

If you can't see that other people might feel different about this, or be able to build great products with these, maybe you're the one without the imagination and ambition...

Grow up.

And accept that both have merit. You may not like it but there's a reason languages, tools, companies, products, whatever become popular. And it isn't just because "people are idiots" or evil companies. Console wars are for teenagers.

Fair enough. But no need for the faux-legalese, it isn't clear whether the OP sanitised it or copied it that way. That changes nothing about my comment though, just who sanitised it.

For sure it isn't the perfect solution for everything, and I say that as someone who spends most of their time in either React or Angular now. For application-like development or just sites with tons of interaction it's become as standard as reaching for Spring or PSQL though.

I can't speak to the complexity you've encountered, but for me it's pretty much zero. A button component is just a function. React-Router is good enough and code splitting is pretty much just changing how to import something. Component state is dead-easy to write by just adding a useState hook. Bundlers pretty much handle everything these days so not to much concern about size.

Your view on front-end developers having been mediocre in the past isn't far off though, at least in my experience. I noticed a big difference between the people who wanted to build nice looking pages and the ones that wanted to build applications myself. Even today it amazes me how many people have never unit tested their code, have no idea about layering an application and have poor JS/TS fundamentals. It's gotten a lot better though.

Ultimately it isn't perfect for everything, but for a lot of people it's an easy choice. And for me personally, the tons of other JS frameworks do very little in that area that I'd pick them. I'd rather spend my time working on the product. Lol, maybe its just the default because its the default at this point.

Good. Innovation isn't the latest framework that barely improves the model and as much as front-end developers like to nit about bundle size, 100kb here and there isn't going to matter for most markets.

Honestly between React, Angular and Vue, there's enough jobs if you do want to specialise, but the mental model between the three isn't that different that a good engineer wouldn't be able to adapt.

React is boring old tech to me at this point and I'm happy with that. Like choosing Java, C# or Python for the back-end. I'd rather focus on innovating my clients products until something earth shattering comes along.

It think it says something that you'd be willing to jump to conclusions. You "learned" it was sanitised and make a point about people willing to alter the truth, then you personally attach some meaning to it. You made up your own reality, when the word "[people]" literally indicates that the OP did change the quote. Instead of assuming malice, you could have also just asked why they changed it, or looked up why words would be in brackets, or give the OP the benefit of the doubt.

My current mornings are pretty relaxed. I wake up an hour before I have to go to work, drink a glass of water, have a coffee while listening to some music and I might be browsing something on the internet. No socials though. Then I fill a water bottle and put it on my desk, take a shower and get dressed/etc. I work from home so that's nice but I do get ready as if I have to go out, i.e. I make effort to look smart and even put on some cologne. I do need to wake up relaxed though, I f*king hate waking up and having to rush.

When I was in between jobs, it was mostly similar but I got up an hour later than I would usually and wouldn't hit the shower until like 10 am. Maybe work on some project or watch something, eat lunch around 12 and then either go out for a walk or get groceries done. Only in the afternoon I would job search, call back people. Its only a few hours but I had to learn not to try to constantly job search, because there simply is no point and it would just make me feel like I was failing at it.

I'd say you're right to want some structure, but you're perfectly fine not having it all be productive.

The reason React is particularly disparaged, imho, is because the framework fashionistas have moved on to chase the new shiny thing, and everyone else has always hated all these frameworks to begin with, so there's no one left to defend this particular hot mess.

I think you're projecting here. Its fine not to like trends in tech, but tech will change whether you like it or not. The people who jump on every new thing and stress about having to learn it all will keep doing it. That doesn't mean that anyone else hated it all to begin with. That's a pretty weird assumption to make. Even this thread is full of people who enjoy using React. Meanwhile, React is pretty stable and boring if you ask me. Your nightmarish decade will be extended. I'll light a candle for you.

Imagine you decided to start developing websites today, how do you even start?

With HTML and CSS. And you don't touch JS until you understand the fundamentals of those. And only after those three do you touch a FE framework.

I'm not even kidding either. Whether its React, Angular or any back-end driven templating, those things are all abstractions over fundamentals.

Take notes as you go or by chapter. If a chapter has a summary at the end, read that first before going through the chapter. If there are code examples, write them out and play around with it. Get the important bits out that way.

Also, realistically you probably won't remember most of what you read. I suck at that as well, but you do build up a lot of peripheral knowledge. You may not remember how to do that one thing, but maybe you do remember that it exists, or that it was in a particular book. Just that type of knowledge has worked well for me.

Yeah that's very poor practice. I get why your site may require JS and have nothing for me if I turn it off, but do at least render some fallback with a bit of info so I know what I'm missing, how/where to contact and might be enticed to turn it on again.

I suppose that notion went away _because_ of JS and cookies.

Looking at it from a business perspective, it's also a matter of cost. How big a percentage of people have JS off (I searched a bit and everything suggests low single digits, 1-2%), versus how much time do I spend making sure the site is somewhat functional to serve these people. And does somewhat functional make sense? Can they see my site but they can't go into my sales funnel without me making HTML-equivalent pages? In that case why would I bother unless that percentage of users grows to where it becomes financially interesting to me?

Still, would be nice if most sites would at least render some plain HTML fallback with a bit of info, instead of a single line on a white page saying "this doesn't work".

No, we can't.

We can't agree on your stance, because other people have different stances. You may have some reason why you want JS and cookies disabled, but many people don't. JS has been a part of the internet for as long as I've been alive. Sure, it's being used different and sometimes needlessly as with the blog you noted, but it's here and it's not going anywhere.

If you want the web to be cookieless and JS-less, you can disable them. But the web is not cookieless and JS-less. You get the experience you want. You can't expect everyone to want that experience.

We used to share designers between teams at a company I worked for. It worked nicely, but the approach has its drawbacks as well, in that the person designing an extension to something might miss a lot of context that the previous person did. Especially if you constantly switch people around, you run into this.

Regardless, that doesn't address the plight of the junior. The junior shouldn't be put alone in a team and expected to effectively manage everything in that beach-ball graph, let alone be expected to come up with proper designs by themselves. That's a fault of the person putting the junior there, not a fault in the design of the whole team.

It usually works out fine when you do a `git pull --rebase`, but not everyone does this or has it setup so pulling might have some nasty effects. Generally helps to consider a feature branch as a private branch. Don't push to other people's features without asking, don't fuck up other people's work.

I commit as clean as possible, each one should be a functioning feature or a part of it. I try to do small ones, so generally they'll just be part of a feature I have on my todo list for the entire feature. That actually helps me to mentally move on as well. If I need to rename some stuff I might squash commits, but no wip commits in the actual history.

End of day I usually commit a "temp" commit with a few comments to myself and push that to the remote branch, revert that the next day and force push over it for the next commit.

I have to apologise to the parent commenter, I laughed inappropriately hard at that.

Still, quite confronting to see how much time you have left statistically. For me it got me to change careers. I figured if I still had 30 work left before retirement, I might as well.

Could also be that I'm remembering it wrong, but I recall having some issues with CRA and structuring tests at some point. In any case, CRA sets up a separate src and test folder, so I guess a lot of people just think they should structure their tests that way.

“But that’s very different from having the latitude to wake up and say, ‘You know, it’s raining. I don’t feel like going to work.’”

Pretty much sums up the CEOs thoughts in a single sentence. People that aren't in the office don't "feel" like going to work.

I don't "feel" like sitting in an office being unproductive, distracted and running from meeting room to meeting room anymore. If your culture is keeping people at the office for 70 hours per week and you're afraid that vanishes if suddenly those lazy people don't have to sit there anymore... then maybe your culture isn't worth much.

Keep it as flat as possible until you really, really need to structure it.

A folder for components and a maybe separate one for pages or containers is probably all you need (and even those you could probably stick in components until some structure arises). Have seen quite a lot of code-bases that suffered from people trying to structure their folders around a certain model too early on, change their mind, change it again, result: a mess.

If they're using something like create-react-app, it may force that structure on them. I remember in earlier versions it was harder to configure other folders to put tests in. I prefer your ideal structure as well, if you're going to co-locate files relating to Button, do it properly, makes it much easier to find things and in this case see if there are tests for your component.

If NATO wanted to go to war, they'd have supported the Ukraine directly from day one and the world would be a different place now.

To be honest, I also thought this would end with the two Eastern regions falling under Russian government and that'd be the end of it. Russia did already annex Crimea in 2014 though, and now they're basically trying to disarm their neighbour and make sure it isn't attractive enough to join NATO/EU.

Sounds easy to give Russia a symbolic win, but where does that stop? Is all Russia needs to do fight a war, take a province and wait out some sanctions? At what point do you realise they're not going to settle for a few pieces of the pie?

You probably wouldn't get downvoted if you added some context, but the description of the video is apt. NATO doesn't want to go into Ukraine because NATO directly getting involved could cause escalation to WWIII. Putin seems crazy enough to want to use the nuclear option.

It was advisory and non-binding. I for one am happy that we get to express our opinions in this way, but the communication around it could've been better. At the time I recall also not knowing that it was non-binding. Calling it a referendum probably set incorrect expectations.