15 Matching Annotations
  1. Apr 2021
  2. Mar 2021
    1. I don't use remote editing much so vim-dirvish is powerful enough to manage my workflow (It's actually faster than netrw ~ the author claims 2x, I feel it's faster than that - it's really instantaneous ⚡) very useful on large codebase/repositories
    1. With these JavaScript techniques, the display of server validation errors could be a lot simpler if you expect most of your users to have JS enabled. For example, Rails still encourages you to dump all validation errors at the top of a form, which is lulzy in this age of touchy UX. But you could do that minimal thing with server errors, then rely on HTML5 validation to provide a good user experience for the vast majority of your users.
  3. Feb 2021
    1. For this one we'll define a helper method to handle raising the correct errors. We have to do this because calling .run! would raise an ActiveInteraction::InvalidInteractionError instead of an ActiveRecord::RecordNotFound. That means Rails would render a 500 instead of a 404.

      True, but why couldn't it handle this for us?

  4. Oct 2020
    1. trusktr herman willems • 2 years ago Haha. Maybe React should focus on a template-string syntax and follow standards (and provide options for pre-compiling in Webpack, etc).

      Well anywho, there's other projects now like hyperHTML, lit-html, etc, plus some really fast ones: https://www.stefankrause.ne...

      React seems a little old now (and the new Hooks API is also resource heavy).

      • Share ›  Michael Calkins trusktr • 4 years ago • edited That's a micro optimization. There isn't a big enough difference to matter unless you are building a game or something extraordinarily odd.

      • Share › −  trusktr Michael Calkins • 2 years ago True, it matters if you're re-rendering the template at 60fps (f.e. for animations, or for games). If you're just changing views one time (f.e. a URL route change), then 100ms won't hurt at all.

  5. May 2020
    1. Integration specs are relied upon to ensure the application functions, but does not ensure pixel-level stylistic perfection.
  6. Mar 2020
    1. the feature was dropped to “lack of use.”

      I don't find the reason "lack of use" sufficient in its own right. (I personally didn't use this feature.) People might not use it because they don't know about. And those that do use may find it extremely useful; it's not their fault if others don't know about it or use. It seems to discriminate a bit against the minority who may use a useful feature. They would rather be in the majority, safe from having one of their favorite features removed.

      But I do understand and appreciate the good explanation given below.