50+ SwiftUI Components that you can copy paste in your next iOS project | Hacker News Reader

50+ SwiftUI Components that you can copy paste in your next iOS project

trace.zip

66 pointsvdthatte16 comments

Without a source code license somewhere on site (I don't see any after looking around) you had better not copy-paste these into a next project. The default state if there's no explicit permission granted is that it's not usable: https://choosealicense.com/no-permission/

These are tutorial code snippets. I didn’t look through all of them, but the snippets are so generic that I think it’s okay to not worry about a license.

oh yes definitely need to include licenses!!

This website seems to have problem rendering in Safari on my iPhone 12 Pro. The header is cut off and the cards are overlaying each other. See here https://pasteboard.co/S8cpPCWQ5FLt.png

fixed it!!

I'm building a component library where Swift UI Devs can discover UI components to use in their projects. They can also share their own with the community easily.

On my iPhone 13 Pro very confusing in portrait mode in Firefox -- just shows the image, no code. Have to rotate to landscape mode and code appears to the side. (In safari doesn't even show with landscape mode.)

that's by design! The mobile experience is just meant for browsing since there's no need to copy the code while you're on mobile.

I don’t agree with that design decision. As a new user, you might come across this site and think it only contains the visual gifs (there are many such design sites without code). Since there’s no indication that the source code exists, I won’t have any idea that I should view it further on my computer.

I would propose to make the mobile the full experience, just making the copy code part less of a focus.

Google sign up as the only option is a deal-breaker.

A .zip website? Yuck

Honestly why is that a problem? If a TLD gets confused for a file extension your browser has a serious bug.

We've had .com, .info, .ai, .app, .sh, .st, .pl, .so, and many other TLDs that are the same as existing file extensions for years now and it's never been a problem.

> Can you quickly tell which of the URLs below is legitimate and which one is a malicious phish that drops evil.exe?

> github.com∕kubernetes∕kubernetes∕archive/refs/tags/@v1271.zip

> github.com∕kubernetes/kubernetes∕archive/refs/tags/v1.27.1.zip

https://medium.com/@bobbyrsec/the-dangers-of-googles-zip-tld...

The vulnerability still lies within the browser in this scenario. It should actually be somewhat trivial for all the major browsers to prevent this sort of attack.

This is obsolete functionality, I can't remember the last time I needed to authenticate to a website using the username@domainname.tld functionality. It should be something hidden behind a config: setting to turn on if you run into a legacy website still requiring it and know exactly what you're doing.

..so?

The point is that no-one was asking for a .zip TLD. It's common sense to not make one. "We should break backwards compatibility on the web so that Google can sell a TLD" is not a defensive viewpoint.

That vulnerability exists even without .zip domain names, it just makes it a little easier to pull off.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com