It was enclosed in scare quotes, a sort of acknowledgment that the author knew it was non-standard, but was too apt for the purpose to resist. I remember reading it and trying to think of the “real” word that would be employed there, but could not find a satisfactory alternative. Since then, I’ve found myself unable to resist using the word when appropriate, due to its utility!

Who says it's not a word? Not a word, simply because lexicographers have not recognized it? When a lexicographer recognizes it, it has already been in use! Even Mr. Fiske says it is a word, although he obviously disprefers it.

on reasonable uses of "disprefer" — it's probably true that its meaning is not immediately apparent, and using it when addressing general audiences probably avoided (dispreferred?), but of course, it depends on the context I think. It is a term that has an obvious jargon aspect, but that doesn't seem to me to make it uniformly verboten. Other, DNA would never have entered the popular lexicon, or quantum… I'm sure those parallels are inapt in several ways, but my point, which I think still stands, is that while clarity to the broadest audience possible is often a laudable goal, this also doesn't mean it should be the only or always the chief goal. It seems to me technical words get disseminated and incorporated popularly through their use outside of strictly technical fora, and while several people said they did a double take or didn't immediately understand the word (or misunderstood its meaning), it's also true that this can happen with perfectly reasonable, standard vernacular constructions, especially reasonable standard constructions that are expressing a counter-intuitive (even if true) claim. Just sayin' — "can people understand this without giving it but a moment's thought" is a high (or ultra-low) car to hold all non-technical communication to. (That said, I also have a love for arcane words, shades of meaning, and being able to express certain moods/valences/concepts precisely. THAT said, I'm no linguist, and probably won't be using this word commonly for all my talk.)

The main problem with disprefer is that it violates de Buitléir's rule: If *I* use a word you're not familiar with, your education or experience is lacking. If *you* use a word I'm not familiar with, you're being a show-off or making up words.

when I was CTO of a company and someone joined, the first thing they had to do was to spend two weeks reading AWDwR from cover to cover. Once you know the framework, there is no magic, only defaults that act as a catalizer and let you fly.

string ones are those most of the Rubyists remember.

At the same time, the vision of a good life for all integrates our in-dividual pursuit of this goal with an immediate concern for others.In other words, we can enjoy and exercise freedoms only to the extentthat doing so does not impinge on others. Achieving this vision under-lines both the crucial role of freedom but also the necessity of limitsfor this freedom to exist. Thereby, pursuing the vision of a good lifefor all has the potential of bridging current political divides, as it is avision that all people can adhere to.

If you don't learn from history, you're doomed to rebase it.

From day one, your team will love the familiarity of a spreadsheet, and the power of a database.

Familiarity: Volumes function as generic block devices, so you can treat attached volumes like locally connected storage drives. This lets you partition, format, and manage volumes with familiar tools and techniques.

The controllers feel very familiar to using ActiveRecord models

You stick with what you know. It's trouble free because you know how to use it. That's achievable on any of the main OSs, even (gasp!) Windows.

Familiar interfaces borrow from well-established patterns. These should be used consistently within the interface to reinforce their meaning and purpose. This should be applied to functionality, behavior, editorial, and presentation. You should say the same things in the same way and users should be able to do the same things in the same way.

Slots can already be pretty confusing to comprehend, I think it is better to stick to what people (may) already know.

Familiar npm inspired dependency management.

If the react cargo cult didn't have the JSX cowpath paved for them and acclimated to describing their app interface with vanilla javascript, they'd cargo cult around that. It's really about the path of least resistance and familiarity.

I have a few colleagues that converted to hyperscript, and while they were adverse at first, they were satisfied with having switched once they had become comfortable with the way it looks/reads.

The only "issue" it has is that its unfamiliar. People have been working with HTML for years and are comfortable with it. That's basically the only reason that people find it more readable. If you make an effort to spend sometime with hyperscript, it becomes as familiar and readable as jsx.

Remember even though the syntax is almost identical, there are significant differences between how Solid's JSX works and a library like React.

In general, I'm unpersuaded by these arguments (learning curve is determined not just by unfamiliar syntax, but by unfamiliar semantics and APIs as well, and the frameworks in question excel at adding complexity in those areas).

the forsythia bush