Tree Navigation

Most C++ template idioms will carry over to D without alteration, but D adds some additional functionality

Comparison to imperative languages

I wanted to keep reviewing restaurants, but I didn’t want to go back into their dining rooms both because of the risk and because I was afraid readers would take it as an all-clear signal. When the governor halted indoor dining again in December, my selfish reaction was relief. Then I briefly got depressed. How would restaurants survive? And how would I keep writing about them?One answer had already started to appear on sidewalks and streets in the form of small greenhouses, huts, tents and yurts. Inside these personal dining rooms, you can (and should) sit just with people from your own household. If the restaurant thoroughly airs the space out between seatings, any germs you breathe in should be the same ones that are bouncing around your home. Many restaurants instruct their servers to stay outside the structures as much as possible, though some don’t.

Before the pandemic, I normally called chefs after I’d written a review of their restaurant but before it was published, to check facts. The chefs usually sounded as if I were calling with the results of a lab test. One chef called me back from a hospital and told me his wife was in the next room giving birth to their first child, but — oh no, don’t worry, it’s fine, he said; in fact, I’d picked a perfect time to call! These were, in other words, awkward conversations.The ones I had last spring were different. It was as if the fear and distrust all chefs feel toward all critics were gone. They talked about going bankrupt, they talked about crying and not wanting to get out of bed. What did they have left to lose by talking to me?

There are times where it is useful to know whether a value was passed to run or the result of a filter default. In particular, it is useful when nil is an acceptable value.

main > h = {key_with_nil_value: nil}
=> {:key_with_nil_value=>nil}

main > h[:key_with_nil_value]
=> nil

main > h[:missing_key]  # this would be undefined in JavaScript (a useful distinction) rather than null, but in Ruby it's indistinguishable from the case where a nil value was actually explicitly _supplied_ by the caller/user
=> nil

# so we have to check for "missingness" ("undefinedness"?) differently in Ruby

main > h.key?(:key_with_nil_value)
=> true

main > h.key?(:missing_key)
=> false

That’s it, plain and simple. But if you want the legalese version, dive into it here.

You can find a list of applications using this gem in this repository: https://github.com/m-Peter/nested-form-examples . All the examples are implemented in before/after pairs. The before is using the accepts_nested_attributes_for, while the after uses this gem to achieve the same functionality.

Compared to existing Ruby desktop frameworks, such as Shoes, Bowline's strengths are its adherence to MVC and use of HTML/JavaScript.

Transport Tycoon is easily one of the best Tycoon games, this variant offers indepth control over your logistic networks and zero breakdowns but with loads of new tools to get to grips with you will need to search up a guide.The other variant, OpenTTD, wants to remain more like the original. its not as precise in its logistics but much simpler to pick up and play.Both are multiplayerBoth are freeIf Simutrans feels abit obtuse, try OTTDIf OTTD feels too simple, try Simutrans

if PopOS! really wants to be what Ubuntu was 10 years ago they need to step up and make dual booting easier.

Snaps each pick a ‘base’, for example, Ubuntu18 (corresponding to the set of minimal debs in Ubuntu 18.04 LTS). Nevertheless, the choice of base does not impact on your ability to use a snap on any of the supported Linux distributions or versions — it’s a choice of the publisher and should be invisible to you as a user or developer.

Taglines are more often next to the company's logo on official advertisements, and are dedicated more specifically to brand awareness than slogans. Slogans carry a brand's values and promises as the company grows and evolves, and can be promoted under an overarching company tagline.

Although both "slogan" and "tagline" tend to be used interchangeably, they actually serve two different purposes. 

Companies have slogans for the same reason they have logos: advertising. While logos are visual representations of a brand, slogans are audible representations of a brand. Both formats grab consumers' attention more readily than the name a company or product might. Plus, they're simpler to understand and remember.

In many ways, they're like mini-mission statements.

And since auto is entirely based on content, we can say it is “indefinitely” sized, its dimensions flex. If we were to put an explicit width on the column, like 50% or 400px, then we would say it is “definitely” sized.

A bind mount is basically where you mount a given directory on top of an existing one. Suppose you have a RAID array where you have a partition mounted at /home2, containing some larger user accounts. If you wanted to remount /home2/user to /home/user (to sidestep issue #1), without the issues that come along with symlinks (it is not a directory, just a token that points to it), you'd do something like mount --bind /home2/bob /home/bob and the directory will then be traversable from both locations. The target folder must exist, same as any mount point. The end result is somewhat similar to a symlink, but instead of creating a special filesystem object, it utilizes the operating system's filesystem mounting machinery to do it, which makes it more transparent to running software. Tools like 'du' and 'find' will still be aware that they are cross filesystem boundaries, and will also behave as such if the bind mount is entirely within a given filesystem. Finally, as they're transient by nature (unlike symlinks), they need to be placed in fstab or some startup script to make them persistent.

The use:action method seems cleaner, but aside from that, are there any underlying differences between these two methods that would make one preferred over the other in certain situations?

Both are elements positioned near a "reference" element, and are hidden until they are triggered. They help conserve space by hiding secondary information or functionality behind a hover or click. They are positioned outside the normal flow of the document so when they are triggered, they are overlaid on top of the existing UI without disrupting the flow of content.

While there are always going to be cases where one is more appropriate than the other, border-bottom offers much more precise control over text-decoration and is therefore probably the preferred method. Here's a quick (likely not exhaustive) list of properties that border-bottom can control/enable that text-decoration cannot:

Popover is similar to tooltips; it is a pop-up box that appears when user click or hover on an element.

How do you know this? I've looked all over the internet and can't find any proof that Lightdm is more "lightweight" (whatever this means) or faster.

LightDM always felt rather sluggish to me. gdm3 appears to be a lot more snappy.

All in all, building icon systems with SVG isn’t that hard! If you have the right tools available, it can be a pretty easy switch. The benefits of SVG sprites have been discussed at length, and the consensus in the web community is that SVG icon systems come out on top when compared with iconic fonts.

sessionStorage (a storage that persists for duration of the session, comparable to session cookies)

localStorage (a persistent storage, which can be compared to persistent cookies)

React abstracts the DOM with functionally pure declarative rendering and provides escape hatches back to mutable imperative DOM land. This is a profound philosophical difference that Rich gave a talk about.

It's true that Svelte does not allow you to map over children like React, but its slot API and <svelte:component> provide similarly powerful composition. You can pass component constructors as props and instantiate them with <svelte:component>, and use slots and their let bindings for higher order composition. It sounds like you're thinking in virtual DOM idioms instead of Svelte's.

My frustration is mainly from Svelte's choices that are very un-JavaScript-like. It doesn't have to be "like React/Vue". React is React because it doesn't restrict what you can do with JavaScript for the most part. It's just common FP practice to fold/map.

I think the main difference between the two are the way API are served. Some smelte components need you to input big chunk of json as props, while i prefer keep props as primitive types and in the other hand give you different components tags to compose.

Really? I've been using Flutter for about a week and Svelte seems an order of magnitude better designed. I find Flutter overly complicated.

Svelte by itself is great, but doing a complete PWA (with service workers, etc) that runs and scales on multiple devices with high quality app-like UI controls quickly gets complex. Flutter just provides much better tooling for that out of the box IMO. You are not molding a website into an app, you are just building an app. If I was building a relatively simple web app that is only meant to run on the web, then I might still prefer Svelte in some cases.

Unfortunately it is not just the semantic that is broken. There are lot of things.For example if you look at some of the examples (https://flutter.github.io/samples/#/) - you can see that indeed there are some div and p tags but it is not entirely normal DOM elements. For example you can't even select text anywhere on the screen. And there are more and more little things like that.Just to be clear - Flutter for web is great, I'm happy it exists, but it is not comparable to React/Vue or Svelte.IMO Flutter for web is good to post live examples of Flutter code or maybe some last-minute-boss-request to make a web version of existing app, but for not for full-blown web app. :)

For use$ since svelte is never going to support actions for components, i designed something that reminds React hooks that will in some ways replace this feature.

SVG has the advantage that integrates very well with Svelte, since it’s an XML and the nodes can be managed as if they were HTML. On the other hand, Canvas is more efficient, but it has to be generated entirely with JavaScript.

In Svelte, all reactive statements are memoized. Instead of const var = useMemo(() => expression, dependencies), you can use $: var = expression. Notice with Svelte, you don't need to declare the dependencies. The compiler infers them for you.

I prefer light stock taking games like American Rails.

That is, if Company A owns 80% or more of the stock of Company B, Company A will not pay taxes on dividends paid by Company B to its stockholders, as the payment of dividends from B to A is essentially transferring cash from one company to the other.

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

The webpack repository contains an example showing the effect of all devtool variants. Those examples will likely help you to understand the differences.

Frontend frameworks are a positive sum game! Svelte has no monopoly on the compiler paradigm either. Just like I think React is worth learning for the mental model it imparts, where UI is a (pure) function of state, I think the frontend framework-as-compiler paradigm is worth understanding. We're going to see a lot more of it because the tradeoffs are fantastic, to where it'll be a boring talking point before we know it.

You may know several Procfile process management tools, but Overmind has some unique, extraterrestrial powers others don't:

React Final Forms is a great library, an enhanced version of Redux Form

Indeed, it looks like svelte-hooks did add support for clean-up functions to their useEffect in devongovett/svelte-hooks@1d39d95! ... which is great, though @DylanVann's much simpler and zero-dependency version is even better in some ways.

mixing the turing complete of javascript with the markup of HTML eliminates the readability of JSX so that it is actually harder to parse than a solution like hyperscript

hyperscript is much simpler to refactor and DRY up your code than with JSX, because, being vanilla javascript, its easier to work with variable assignment, loops and conditionals.

This module is similar to JSX, but provided as a standards-compliant ES6 tagged template string function.

const { getByRole } = render(<input bind_value={text}>)

const { getByRole } = render(html`<input bind:value=${text} />`)

Then at some moment I just stumbled upon limitations and inexpressiveness of templates and started to use JSX everywhere — and because JSX was not a typical thing for Vue I switched to React over time. I don’t want to make a step back.

Arguably, it leans into JSX land—including logic in the templates.

Comparison to Node.js

Solid is similar to remoteStorage in that it allows apps and services (including unhosted web apps) to store the user's data under the user's control.

createState and createSignal are improvements over React's useState as it doesn't depend on the order of calls.

Solid is a declarative JavaScript library for creating user interfaces. It's kinda like if React and Svelte had a baby.

Comparison to useReducer

Next.js is a React framework from Vercel (formerly ZEIT), and is the inspiration for Sapper. There are a few notable differences, however:

for example, reactive declarations essentially do the work of React's useMemo, useCallback and useEffect without the boilerplate (or indeed the garbage collection overhead of creating inline functions and arrays on each state change).

In Vue, your markup must be wrapped in a <template> element, which I'd argue is redundant.

If you're using Rollup with rollup-plugin-svelte, this will happen automatically.

If you need to call the function repeatedly, this is much, much faster than using eval.

Rollup also does something very different compared to the other bundlers. It only tries to achieve one simple goal: Bundle ES modules together and optimise the bundle.

Allow creating custom components with the same abilities as native dom. By all means keep the same level of encapsulation, don't push class on components, but allow a component to mark the class property or another as a CSS Class property, in which case you could pass it through the same transformation that native elements go through

I think Svelte's approach where it replaces component instances with the component markup is vastly superior to Angular and the other frameworks. It gives the developer more control over what the DOM structure looks like at runtime—which means better performance and fewer CSS headaches, and also allows the developer to create very powerful recursive components.

Does it look like a decorator plugin in Ractive, right