525 karma · joined August 22, 2009
I feel it never really was about denying how effective plain web pages are but rather that faced with the choice of a wonderful DX with just JS, and a more difficult day to day with a mix of both, we picked the first. Sometimes at the expense of the end user, yaddi yaddi yadda, etc.
Good solutions for the "have your cake and eat it" scenario with exceptionally good DX are just now reaching some maturity.
My guess is that it stays undiagnosed because doctors aren't trained to make the connection between untreated ADHD (as an adult) and the disparate consequences it has on one's life.
Like every tool, there's a sweet spot where it really shines and others where it doesn't fit. If you need to have access to a bunch of disparate datasources it's really nice to have that layer of abstraction.
That's what I find the most attractive about GraphQL. Large companies and companies that have grown fast often have all kinds of APIs made at different time by different people with different standards. GraphQL lets you paper over that without breaking existing, revenue making code.
Might be possible to have them sign an employment contract beforehand and simply have them join an existing, reputable bootcamp.
This trend has grown in response to how difficult it is to avoid regressions at scale - large or multiple projects, lots of components, lots of independent teams, etc.
The cascade really is an elegant and efficient idea but it becomes really difficult to manage as projects grow.
The different with inline CSS is that those helpers are the building blocks — that’s where your standardize your design system metrics.
As others have pointed out this library provides a mechanism to abstract into components as well.
I mean I'm glad that when I call 911 the dispatching system probably isn't written in JavaScript, but it's likely that there's a web ui somewhere in there. Police cars too, run web applications on those touchscreens.
I'm definitely aware of JS shortcomings, having had to deal with them for many years. I just found that particular quote to be a little snarky, and outdated.
That's a little condescending, considering the amount of non-trivial, critical applications written in JavaScript. And it ignores the progress made on the language and tooling of the last oh i don't know, 20 years.
Computers, not so much.
Source: Also collecting synthesizers. :)
It is at best an inappropriate comparison.
In the larger cities, salaries have really gone up in the last few years.
CSS tooling is quite rudimentary, too, which doesn't help.
The textbooks are "OCaml from the very beginning" and "More OCaml: Algorithms, Methods & Diversions"
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Refe...
But if people are concerned about syntax mangling now, those features are going to make things 100 times crazier.
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Refe...