creatable

I am very impressed by the fact that this is an actual Azure IP.

What I specifically meant is that the "type" property can impact runtime evaluation as per the spec, however it's implied to be used specifically for impacting runtime evaluation based on a file's type. Say I have a module in a language that transpiles to JavaScript based off of the "type" property. In Bun, I would not be able to use any functions exported by it as a macro because the "type" property is being used for defining the module as a macro. That's the specific issue I have.

Every time I see a new Bun update it's always because Bun has implemented a feature that violates the spec in some way. While this does rely on syntax from a proposal, said proposal has not made it into the language yet. Another failure I see is the fact that the "type" property is not meant to be used for this type of language augmentation, it's meant to describe the type of the file without inferring from the file extension. I think Bun has a habit of moving too fast and breaking things and if it catches on I worry it will have just as many legacy anti-spec things as Node does.

> or they just don't want to try a zillion frameworks

But isn't HTMX one of said zillion frameworks? What makes it any different?

I personally do consider HTMX to be a valid alternative to React, but I also think that a lot of usage / promotion of it comes from people who are misinformed and think that the entirety of the JavaScript ecosystem is React. I consistently see a lot of people use HTMX over React alternatives purely because of a "distaste for JavaScript" or an understanding that everything is or has to be as complex as React unless you're using HTMX.

Why do I continue to see people imply that React is the only way of writing frontend web applications with JavaScript? There are plenty of alternatives to React that I would say are far more "idiomatic". I highly recommend taking a look at Vue 3 or Svelte to get a better idea of what frontend JavaScript can be.

Tauri is not inherently faster. On the largest platform (Windows), Tauri scores similar performance numbers to Chromium. Why? Because it's still Blink under the hood, since the system browser is Edge.

The instances in which Tauri is faster are when you write your business logic in Rust and your frontend logic in JS.

Simply switching to Tauri will not instantly speed up your app.

Section D is what makes it specifically GPL incompatible. The problem with not having ANY terms is that people can make derivatives of your software under new conditions, due to how copyright law works. You need conditions to impose the lack of conditions.

Have you seen the Ms-PL? It appears to be deliberately GPL incompatible while also having a similar list of conditions as the MIT license. I think it should be the default license for public repositories.

This is nonsense semantics. Words and phrases change meaning over time.

libadwaita disallowing themes is not a user-hostile decision (rather an accessibility one), nor are themes impossible. https://blogs.gnome.org/alatiera/2021/09/18/the-truth-they-a...

Thanks for the existential dread.

dmg and deb files are not binaries, they just contain binaries.

I am very confused as to why you are discussing a completely unrelated piece of software without even mentioning the software this post is about?

Do you mean virtual DOM?

It's almost fully supported on Windows currently. There's one open PR and one open issue [0] remaining before windows is considered supported.

[0] https://github.com/crystal-lang/crystal/issues/5430

I feel like if the Nix developers stopped calling everything Nix + x then it'd be significantly less confusing.