It seems that the method is a direct equivalent of a.fdiv(b).ceil, and as such, annoyingly unnecessary, but fdiv, due to floating point imprecision, might produce surprising results in edge cases

As "module" is more generic concept than "class", the name misleadingly implies that either this method doesn't returns refined modules, or modules can't be refined. This is obviously not true and trivially disproved: module Refs refine Enumerable do def foo = puts 'foo' end end Refs.refinements[0].refined_class #=> Enumerable. Which is, well, not a class. # The refinement is usable, so it is not a mute concept: using Refs [1, 2, 3].foo # prints "foo" successfully I believe we refer to "modules" when some feature applies to modules and classes. Unless there is some deeper consideration for the current naming (I don't see justification in #12737, but I might miss something), the method should be renamed or aliased.

The debate about whether a button or link should be used to download a file is a bit silly, as the whole purpose of a link has always been to download content. HTML is a file, and like all other files, it needs to be retrieved from a server and downloaded before it can be presented to a user. The difference between a Photoshop file, HTML, and other understood media files, is that a browser automatically displays the latter two. If one were to link to a Photoshop .psd file, the browser would initiate a document change to render the file, likely be all like, “lol wut?” and then just initiate the OS download prompt. The confusion seems to come from developers getting super literal with the “links go places, buttons perform actions.” Yes, that is true, but links don’t actually go anywhere. They retrieve information and download it. Buttons perform actions, but they don’t inherently “get” documents. While they can be used to get data, it’s often to change state of a current document, not to retrieve and render a new one. They can get data, in regards to the functionality of forms, but it continues to be within the context of updating a web document, not downloading an individual file. Long story short, the download attribute is unique to anchor links for a reason. download augments the inherent functionality of the link retrieving data. It side steps the attempt to render the file in the browser and instead says, “You know what? I’m just going to save this for later…”

Making UIs with Svelte is a pleasure. Svelte’s aesthetics feel like a warm cozy blanket on the stormy web. This impacts everything — features, documentation, syntax, semantics, performance, framework internals, npm install size, the welcoming and helpful community attitude, and its collegial open development and RFCs — it all oozes good taste. Its API is tight, powerful, and good looking — I’d point to actions and stores to support this praise, but really, the whole is what feels so good. The aesthetics of underlying technologies have a way of leaking into the end user experience.

Long ago, the standards deities gifted us <style scoped>, before removing it in favour of the arguably less-useful shadow DOM encapsulation mechanism.

andrewdeandrade commented on Jul 30, 2015

andrewdeandrade commented on Jul 31, 2015

The react community has become a big cargo cult. There are some good ideas in the community and many Bad Ideas™. Paving the bad idea cowpaths lends a sense of legitimacy to these bad technical ideas that is not merited.

I'm suggesting there should be a way to write lifecycle related code that also responds to changing props, like how useEffect works. I think how React handles this could be a good source of inspiration.