after many online called for her firing over a social media post that likened the experience of Jews during the Holocaust to the U.S. political climate

Very often in these monorepos, packages are so incredibly specific in functionality, the question then becomes why even have a separate package at all if it’s tightly coupled? Can you use these packages independently or are they tied to specific versions of other packages in the monorepo? It’ll probably be easier to remove the mask and just work as a monolith.

But I believe the core philosophy of tiny modules is actually sound and easier to maintain than giant frameworks.

I would much rather have a "cosine" module than a "trigonometry" module because chances are good I only need a small fraction of the utilities provided by the larger trig module.

Small modules are extremely versatile and easy to compose together in an app with any number of other modules that suit your needs.

Second, I don't agree that there are too many small modules. In fact, I wish every common function existed as its own module. Even the maintainers of utility libraries like Underscore and Lodash have realized the benefits of modularity and allowed you to install individual utilities from their library as separate modules. From where I sit that seems like a smart move. Why should I import the entirety of Underscore just to use one function? Instead I'd rather see more "function suites" where a bunch of utilities are all published separately but under a namespace or some kind of common name prefix to make them easier to find. The way Underscore and Lodash have approached this issue is perfect. It gives consumers of their packages options and flexibility while still letting people like Dave import the whole entire library if that's what they really want to do.

All too often, people get hung up on the wrong aspects of the Unix Philosophy, and miss the forest for the trees

this only applies to end products which are actually deployed. For my modules, I try to keep dependency version ranges at defaults, and recommend others do the same. All this pinning and packing is really the responsibility of the last user in the chain, and from experience, you will make their life significantly more difficult if you pin your own module dependencies.

I suspect you aren't seeing much discussion because those who have a reasonable process in place, and do not consider this situation to be as bad as everyone would have you believe, tend not to comment on it as much.

The elimination of what is arguably the biggest monoculture in the history of software development would mean that we, the community, could finally take charge of both languages and run-times, and start to iterate and grow these independently of browser/server platforms, vendors, and organizations, all pulling in different directions, struggling for control of standards, and (perhaps most importantly) freeing the entire community of developers from the group pressure of One Language To Rule Them All.

JavaScript needs to fly from its comfy nest, and learn to survive on its own, on equal terms with other languages and run-times. It’s time to grow up, kid.

If JavaScript were detached from the client and server platforms, the pressure of being a monoculture would be lifted — the next iteration of the JavaScript language or run-time would no longer have to please every developer in the world, but instead could focus on pleasing a much smaller audience of developers who love JavaScript and thrive with it, while enabling others to move to alternative languages or run-times.

While various shortcomings of the standard run-time library are the obvious, immediate reason for the creation of micro-packages

As to opinions about the shortcomings of the language itself, or the standard run-times, it’s important to realize that every developer has a different background, different experience, different needs, temperament, values, and a slew of other cultural motivations and concerns — individual opinions will always be largely personal and, to some degree, non-technical in nature.

There used to be other backends in addition to C: Java, CSharp, and Javascript but those suffered from bitrot and have been removed.

A product’s onceability is, to a certain extent, linked to its usefulness. If it is really useful, we will certainly go to considerable lengths to repair it.

Even if the damned thing would be really helpful in the long run, I can't give it the time and attention needed to make it work again ...  Not right now. And ultimately never.

Onceability can be the result of the exaggerated demand for un-memorable passwords.

I searched for a replacement, but the list of plug-ins had 5000 items and the search function couldn't find anything of the same kind...

As of May 24, 2016, antimicro has moved from https://github.com/Ryochan7/antimicro to https://github.com/AntiMicro/antimicro. Additionally, project management has passed from Travis (Ryochan7) to the AntiMicro organization due to Travis having other interests and priorities.

To the consternation of some users, 3.x employed Unicode variable names such as λ, φ, τ and π for a concise representation of mathematical operations. A downside of this approach was that a SyntaxError would occur if you loaded the non-minified D3 using ISO-8859-1 instead of UTF-8. 3.x also used Unicode string literals, such as the SI-prefix µ for 1e-6. 4.0 uses only ASCII variable names and ASCII string literals (see rollup-plugin-ascii), avoiding encoding problems.

Microlibraries are easier to understand, develop and test. They make it easier for new people to get involved and contribute. They reduce the distinction between a “core module” and a “plugin”, and increase the pace of development in D3 features.

It is unrelated to the technology company AMD and the processors it makes.

This is a copy of the "AMD" document in the repo, kept here to maintain historical links. If this document differs from the one in the repo, the repo version is the correct one.

Normally you should not register a named module, but instead register as an anonymous module: define(function () {}); This allows users of your code to rename your library to a name suitable for their project layout. It also allows them to map your module to a dependency name that is used by other libraries.

ECMAScript is a programming language itself, specified in the document ECMA-262. In other words, ECMA-262 is the specification of the programming language ECMAScript. JavaScript is an implementation of ECMAScript which conforms to the ECMAScript specification. JavaScript implementations can also provide additional features not described in the specification.

This thread is more than 5 months old. It is very likely that it does not need any further discussion and thus bumping it serves no purpose. If you feel it is necessary to make a new reply, you can still do so though. I am aware that this thread is rather old but I still want to make a reply.

I'd suggest there ought to be config to disable source maps specifically, and specifically for either CSS or JS (not alwasy both), without turning off debug mode. As you note, debug mode does all sorts of different things that you might want with or without source maps.

Meh... as I said earlier, I think using Webpack is the recommended way now. Another issue is there is no way to generate source maps in production.

I don't myself understand what's going on, it clearly has something to do with source maps, but may also have to do with other sprockets changes.

But yeah, I'm not sure how you would determine which was the "recommended way" really. I don't see anything in Rails docs saying either way.

But last I have seen comments from DHH, he considered webpack(er) recommended for JS, but Sprockets still the preferred solution for (S)CSS.

I don't really understand what's going on. Clearly source maps have something to do with it -- a source map feature that doesn't handle SCSS very well, apparently.

Is there a PR to... something? sassc-rails? That would make the patch not necessary? (I don't know if there's any good way to monkey-patch that in, I think you have to fork? So some change seems required...) Should the defaults be different somehow? This is very difficult to figure out.

I agree about lack of maintenance. It's probably because people use more and more Webpack.

# This behavior can be disabled with: # # environment.unregister_postprocessor 'application/javascript', Sprockets::SafetyColons

Essentially after any edit of any js file if we reload /qunit it takes us about 10 seconds for the page to render.

I was debugging our painfully slow reload times in Discourse when running qunit.

but I still have no idea if I'm writing this new file correctly.

we want source maps in production (like DHH)

I totally understand that there may be a majority still considering this a bad practice and thus keeping it disabled by default in production seem ok. But there could at least be an option to enable it for people who want to, no?

After waiting years for sprockets to support this we were very happy to see that sprockets 4 officially added support (thanks ), but then when trying to upgrade we noticed there's actually no way to use it in production... (without brittle hacks mentioned above).

I'd be happy to open a PR for this, but I'm not sure exactly what code needs to change. default_source_map.rb and source_map_utils.rb seem like candidates, but I'd appreciate guidance

If the bug is still there I think that it is better if it is open so others can find it if they run into the same issue.

The way we do it currently is by calling load from inside of load, via different "pipelines" and processors which is quite elegant and completely impossible to work with.

If I can find some time, maybe I can help pitch in somehow.

I'm kinda stuck at the moment, going around in circles. Everything is really heavily coupled. I would like to get to the point where no load is called from within processors, but i'm not sure if that's possible. Currently the API and the caching strategies are fighting me at every step of the way. I have a branch where i'm hacking through some refactoring, no light at the end of the tunnel yet though :(

Money could be good if it is spent to provide some of the above things. Money on it's own is hard because then it means I would have to spend time book-keeping and managing instead of programming.

Reopening #162

it's super hard to test master because i have no idea which gems need to be updated. is there a guide on how to take a rails 4.2 project to master sprockets without everything mysteriously exploding? ill try to make a repro case but its hard to tell where to even start

Opal is a Ruby to JavaScript source-to-source compiler. It comes packed with the Ruby corelib you know and love. It is both fast as a runtime and small in its footprint.

OpenFaaS® makes it easy for developers to deploy event-driven functions and microservices to Kubernetes without repetitive, boiler-plate coding.

Hyperstack gives you full access to the entire universe of JavaScript libraries and components directly within your Ruby code.Everything you can do in JavaScript is simple to do in Ruby; this includes passing parameters between Ruby and JavaScript and even passing Ruby methods as JavaScript callbacks.There is no need to learn JavaScript, all you need to understand is how to bridge between JS and Ruby.

Better yet, send them a link to this page to help them understand why and how to make an example app:

If you end up finding and fixing a bug in your code, consider re-reading the documentation and seeing if that behavior of the library is unclear. Consider sending a documentation PR.

Before a bug can be fixed, it has to be understood and reproduced. For every issue, a maintainer gets, they have to decipher what was supposed to happen and then spend minutes or hours piecing together their reproduction. Usually, they can’t get it right, so they have to ask for clarification. This back-and-forth process takes lots of energy and wastes everyone’s time. Instead, it’s better to provide an example app from the beginning. At the end of the day, would you rather maintainers spend their time making example apps or fixing issues?

I think that over time the distinction is lost. My math teacher, 35 years ago stated "formulas are used in chemistry, in math we have equations". To this day, the word 'formula' in math seems wrong, but I'd accept it's used commonly.

An equation is any expression with an equals sign, so your example is by definition an equation. Equations appear frequently in mathematics because mathematicians love to use equal signs. A formula is a set of instructions for creating a desired result. Non-mathematical examples include such things as chemical formulas (two H and one O make H2O), or the formula for Coca-Cola (which is just a list of ingredients). You can argue that these examples are not equations, in the sense that hydrogen and oxygen are not "equal" to water, yet you can use them to make water.

We don’t want to invalidate the input if the user removes all text. They may need a moment to think, but the invalidated state sets off an unnecessary alarm.

You can use the :placeholder-shown pseudo class. Technically a placeholder is required, but you can use a space instead.

There is (currently) no CSS selector for detecting directly whether an input control has a nonempty value, so we need to do it indirectly, as described above.

If you plan on using a gamepad with big picture mode I made a config that works perfectly so check it out.

There are myriads of platformers around, it's an oversaturated market, and just like industrial designer Karim Rashid said about there being no excuse by this point to make an uncomfortable chair, there's no excuse by this point to make a boring patformer.

Assuming wonderful support, this is how the logic would play out…

:placeholder-shown is super useful for us here! It’s basically the secret selector for testing if an input currently has a value or not.

You’d think :empty would be it, but it’s not. That’s for matching things like <p></p>… container elements with nothing inside them. Inputs are no-content elements already.

always use real <label for="correct_input"> elements. Just that alone is a UX consideration all too many forms fail on

My collection (this isn’t all of it) grows at a comical pace.

Having them in a physical form is good for my soul.

This is a non-exhaustive list of other things I love;

This question was asked over a year ago, but it's a good question that I recently encountered as well...

Alxemes jiy ñów la lekkool di ubbi.

Beykat yi duñu dem tool altine.

Fibar bi jàngal na taawan bu góor ni ñuy dagge reeni aloom.

Dafa ànd ak moroom yi àll ba, fori aloom.

Séentuwul woon ni dinañu ko alamaan.

Sama nijaay aj na ñaari yoon.

Dave Rupert has a good solution that uses an input's invalid event. Instead of using the :invalid pseudo selector, he adds a CSS class to the input when it becomes invalid. We will extend this approach by removing the CSS class when the element becomes valid again.

Validating forms has notoriously been a painful development experience. Implementing client side validation in a user friendly, developer friendly, and accessible way is hard. Before HTML5 there was no means of implementing validation natively; therefore, developers have resorted to a variety of JavaScript based solutions.

I know this is old, but I got the same error and I came here from Google, so in case someone does too, this was my solution:

markdown-it is the result of the decision of the authors who contributed to 99% of the Remarkable code to move to a project with the same authorship but new leadership (Vitaly and Alex). It's not a fork.

Try before you buy Here's a link to the game on Tabletopia: Judean Hammer on Tabletopia

I realize the question was asked 9 years ago, but this question is (still) ranked highly in search results and I came across it today

If you want to try playing to see how these pieces work in the game, you can playtest it on the Iishogi.org site (https://lishogi.org/).  Last year the Iishogi designer asked me to register the Design SHOGI pieces on their site.  This Iishogi.org is a free to play Shogi website.  I was willing to give them permission to use them.  You are free to play and switch pieces design from the piece variation section.  If you register your ID, then you can play vs the A.I. easily.  You can learn how the Design SHOGI pieces work there.

This is the story of how a bill to save the vote and preserve a semblance of democracy for millions of Americans died at the hands of an intransigent, reactionary minority in the Senate, which used the filibuster to do its dirty work

It can also be included as individual modules, i.e. Hashie::Extensions::MethodReader, Hashie::Extensions::MethodWriter and Hashie::Extensions::MethodQuery.

It is much easier to track what is going on within the activity. Instead of transporting additional state via ctx, you expose the outcome via an additional end event.

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.

So why the over-complication? What we got now is replicating a chain of && in the former version. This time, however, you will know which condition failed and what went in by using tracing. Look at the trace above - it’s impossible to not understand what was going on.

Hey, that’s is an imaginary complication of our example - please don’t do this with every condition you have in your app.

.The firstparadigm centres on institutional power: ‘Our schools, our government, our businessesand corporations are permeated with the view that neither individual nor group aretrustworthy. There must be power over, power to control. This hierarchal system isinherent in our whole culture’. The second paradigm takes the opposite view: ‘Givena suitable climate, humankind is trustworthy, creative, self-motivated, powerful andconstructive – capable of releasing undreamed-of-potentialities’

importedfrom the business and commercial world.

target driven climate which has the potential to undermine theimportance of ‘relationship

patch: -> { step Destroy.method(:tidy_storage), before: :delete_model }

URI::MailTo::EMAIL_REGEXP

Since we're not passing any inputs to ListAccounts, it makes sense to use .run! instead of .run. If it failed, that would mean we probably messed up writing the interaction.

For branching out a separate path in an activity, use the Path() macro. It’s a convenient, simple way to declare alternative routes

step :decide_type, Output(Activity::Left, :credit_card) => Track(:with_credit_card)

# Create the track, which would automatically create an implicit End with the same id.
Track(:with_credit_card) do
    step :authorize
    step :charge
end

class Example::ValidationErrorTrack < Trailblazer::Activity::Railway
  step :validate_model, Output(:failure) => Track(:validation_error)
  step :save,           Output(:failure) => Track(:validation_error)

  # Can't use fail here or the magnetic_to won't work and  Track(:validation_error) won't work
  step :log_validation_error, magnetic_to: :validation_error,
    Output(:success) => End(:validation_error), 
    Output(:failure) => End(:validation_error) 
end

puts Trailblazer::Developer.render o
Reloading...

#<Start/:default>
 {Trailblazer::Activity::Right} => #<Trailblazer::Activity::TaskBuilder::Task user_proc=validate_model>
#<Trailblazer::Activity::TaskBuilder::Task user_proc=validate_model>
 {Trailblazer::Activity::Left} => #<Trailblazer::Activity::TaskBuilder::Task user_proc=log_validation_error>
 {Trailblazer::Activity::Right} => #<Trailblazer::Activity::TaskBuilder::Task user_proc=save>
#<Trailblazer::Activity::TaskBuilder::Task user_proc=save>
 {Trailblazer::Activity::Left} => #<Trailblazer::Activity::TaskBuilder::Task user_proc=log_validation_error>
 {Trailblazer::Activity::Right} => #<End/:success>
#<Trailblazer::Activity::TaskBuilder::Task user_proc=log_validation_error>
 {Trailblazer::Activity::Left} => #<End/:validation_error>
 {Trailblazer::Activity::Right} => #<End/:validation_error>
#<End/:success>

#<End/:validation_error>

#<End/:failure>

class Example::ValidationErrorTrack::VPathHelper1 < Trailblazer::Activity::Railway
   validation_error_path = Path(end_id: "End.validation_error", end_task: End(:validation_error)) do
    step :log_validation_error
  end
  step :validate_model, Output(:failure) => validation_error_path
  step :save,           Output(:failure) => validation_error_path
end

o=Example::ValidationErrorTrack::VPathHelper1; puts Trailblazer::Developer.render o
Reloading...

#<Start/:default>
 {Trailblazer::Activity::Right} => #<Trailblazer::Activity::TaskBuilder::Task user_proc=validate_model>
#<Trailblazer::Activity::TaskBuilder::Task user_proc=validate_model>
 {Trailblazer::Activity::Left} => #<Trailblazer::Activity::TaskBuilder::Task user_proc=log_validation_error>
 {Trailblazer::Activity::Right} => #<Trailblazer::Activity::TaskBuilder::Task user_proc=save>
#<Trailblazer::Activity::TaskBuilder::Task user_proc=log_validation_error>
 {Trailblazer::Activity::Right} => #<End/:validation_error>
#<Trailblazer::Activity::TaskBuilder::Task user_proc=save>
 {Trailblazer::Activity::Left} => #<Trailblazer::Activity::TaskBuilder::Task user_proc=log_validation_error>
 {Trailblazer::Activity::Right} => #<End/:success>
#<End/:success>

#<End/:validation_error>

#<End/:failure>

Subprocess will try to match the nested ends’ semantics to the tracks it knows. You may wire custom ends using Output.

step :direct_debit

Patching has no implicit, magical side-effects and is strongly encouraged to customize flows for a specific case in a quick and consise way.

However, it can be a PITA if you want to customize one of those deeply nested components and add or remove a certain step, for example.

While you could nest an activity into another manually, the Subprocess macro will come in handy.

The macro automatically wires all of Validate’s ends to the known counter-part tracks.

Since notify sits on the “failure” track and hence is “magnetic to” :failure, find_provider will be connected to it.

This connects the failure output to the previous task, which might create an infinity loop and waste your computing time - it is solely here for demonstrational purposes.

how to track on-call coverage

Personally, I'm starting to think that the feature where it automatically adds xray.js to the document is more trouble than it's worth. I propose that we remove that automatic feature and just make it part of the install instructions that you need to add this line to your template/layout: <%= javascript_include_tag 'xray', nonce: true if Rails.env.development? %>

Now that I've thought more about it, I honestly think the auto-adding the script feature is overrated, over-complicated, and error-prone (#98, #100), and I propose we just remove it (#110).