This makes developing a modern daemon much easier. The init config file is what you use to configure logging, run as a user, and many other things you previous did in code. You tweak a few init config settings; your code focuses less on housekeeping and more on functionality.

# booleans # simple: providing any value for ENV['FORCE_SSL'] means `true`: force_ssl = !!ENV['FORCE_SSL'] # more advanced: # only when we provide 'true' will `force_ssl` become true. force_ssl = ('true' == ENV['FORCE_SSL'])

Reducing nested structures is tiresome. Have you tried immer?

With first-class keyword arguments in the language, we don’t have to write the boilerplate code to extract hash options. Unnecessary boilerplate code increases the opportunity for typos and bugs.

The goal of this gem is to reduce the amount of code that needs to be written when developing a ruby on rails website.

Boilerplate is only boilerplate if it's the same everywhere, which it shouldn't be.

and if I think this is too boilerplatey, I can export a handler from some .js file and pass the error to that: <script> import { onError } from 'svelte' import { genericHandler } from '../my-error-handler.js' onError(genericHandler(e => { // code which is called first to try to handle this locally return true // we've handled it here, don't do anything else. }) </script>

React, on the other hand, often requires a fair amount of boilerplate code, even for simple interactions.

That should work as expected and not be too verbose (or at least it doesn't repeat string literals anywhere)

So is @Ryan Cavanaugh's answer the only viable solution? It seems extremely verbose...

Which gets the job done, but that's a chunk of boilerplate for a simple accessor

I like auto-property generation... who needs boilerplate code?

Coming from React to Svelte this did catch me out numerous times but for me I now prefer Svelte's approach, particularly because it removes some of the boilerplate around useEffect.

Here's where I start to have a preference for Svelte; the two are very similar but once I got used to Svelte I found that React felt like jumping through hoops. You can't create a worker instance, it has to go in a useRef, and then you can't easily pull code out into a function without then requiring useCallback so it can be a safe dependency on useEffect. With Svelte I write code that's closer to "plain" JavaScript, whereas in React more of my code is wrapped in a React primitive.

To understand this helper, you should understand that every step invocation calls Output() for you behind the scenes. The following DSL use is identical to the one [above]. class Execute < Trailblazer::Activity::Railway step :find_provider, Output(Trailblazer::Activity::Left, :failure) => Track(:failure), Output(Trailblazer::Activity::Right, :success) => Track(:success)

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>

The sole purpose to add Dev::Trace::Inspector module is to make custom inspection possible and efficient while tracing. For example, ActiveRecord::Relation#inspect makes additional queries to fetch top 10 records and generate the output everytime. To avoid this, Inspector will not call inspect method when it finds such objects (deeply nested anywhere). Instead, it’ll call AR::Relation#to_sql to get plain SQL query which doesn’t make additional queries and is better to understand in tracing output.

As you can see, we end up with a lot of boilerplate if-statements. The code is more verbose. And it’s difficult to follow the main logic.

it is inconvenient to write specific implementations for each datatype contained, especially if the code for each datatype is virtually identical. For example, in C++, this duplication of code can be circumvented by defining a class template

Supporting languages may use monads to abstract away boilerplate code needed by the program logic.

They help streamlining the control flow, and take away control code while providing you with an incredibly cool developer experience.

account.first_name = first_name if first_name.present? account.last_name = last_name if last_name.present?

Also, you'll get more concise code. More boilerplate left handling by the machine means more available human for the actual logic.

If you were to check the return status of every single command, your script would look like this:

Compare that with the current recommended way to add/remove fields in an array, which is very verbose and boilerplatey:

Writing a logic-less template requires a bloated view model with comprehensive getters for the raw data. As a result, a messy and difficult-to-maintain view model usually accompanies logic-less templates.

This is exactly why I'm in favor of @const. Helpers are fine, except when they're not and turn into boilerplate.

always end up with a boilerplate function somewhere, which feels hacky.

The Svelte compiler does the dependency tracking work for us, so there’s no dependency array like in React.

We get a boilerplate-free API where shared state has the same simple get/set interface as React local state (yet can be encapsulated with reducers etc. if needed).

Comparison to useReducer

This library is built in TypeScript, and for TypeScript users it offers an additional benefit: one no longer needs to declare action types. The example above, if we were to write it in TypeScript with useReducer, would require the declaration of an Action type: type Action = | { type: 'reset' } | { type: 'increment' } | { type: 'decrement' }; With useMethods the "actions" are implicitly derived from your methods, so you don't need to maintain this extra type artifact.

It would be tiresome - and bloated - to include a class pass-through for every component or assigning custom properties (from the RFC linked) for all potential properties on every component, just in case it's gonna be used in layouts that requires it. Wrapping them in a wrapper div is certainly an option, but potentially creates 100s or 1000s (long lists, several lists etc.) of new elements in the DOM slowing down low-end devices.

currently it's definitely possible from the user side but it requires some boilerplate code that we could move to svelte.

Seems like an awful lot of typing to make a simple input control, especially when Angular did all that for you.

It starts to get a bit boilerplatey though, especially if your component subscribes to multiple stores.

Take the case of the <input> element in this component — we could add an on:input event handler that sets the value of name to event.target.value, but it's a bit... boilerplatey

I was just expressing that, even thought I like React, I dread having to still manually handle everything, instead of just using a directive, a la Vue.JS. This is what I consider boilerplate. Hence my comment on how I could leave React for Svelte just because of that. Clearly a Svelte side-by-side code comparison shows a much cleaner code for Svelte.

Man, just because it gets rid of SO MUCH boilerplate I want to switch already.It kills me everytime I work with forms in React. So much noise for such a simple task.