fjfuvucucuc

If you're not failing you're not trying hard enough.

Personally I don't associate it with the negative connotations you do. I associate it with the word trying.

Yea, don't debate that. I just personally have no tolerance for the behaviour of these framework developers and the level of work they impose on their users.

For a business that has engineers to manage this day to day it's less of an issue. For building things you want to live online untouched for a decade it's just not an option.

Laravel is nice to build stuff fast in one particular way. It's awful to maintain and heaven forbid you have a different idea about how things should be done.

So like PHP?

This thread is so cope.

Oh please, I professionally use both daily (enjoy them both), but even I can see JSX is just PHP with extra steps.

I started out as a symfony snob. Got sick of writing java in PHP so I picked up laravel. Got sick of having to modify my code every time Taylor huffed some new shit so I started building things using WordPress.

It's so refreshing knowing that my websites auto update themselves and I never have to update them unless there is a legitimate reason to do so.

Backwards compatibility is the ONLY thing I care about in a framework. Life's too short to babysit some frameworks ideas of how my code should work ten years after building the damn thing.

Of course, the issue is they don't have an ai industry. The idea that they do is a CCP talking point theyve been pushing lately. They're pumping out fake ai crap all over the internet.

Fun? Takes like two weekends to build the whitepaper version of google.

I dunno, it was your idea. Seems like a waste of time to me.

"I see from your resume that you're more of a maintenance programmer, but we really need people who can hit the ground running, banging out new huge kernel modules. Maybe you could assist them, by writing unit tests, and fetching their coffee, so they can focus on the challenging new stuff?"

Is "new stuff" easier work than maintaining old stuff? I always thought it was the other way around. I always give greenfield stuff to the juniors. They fuck it up I fix it. It's basically like using chatgpt.

Some people slept that way in pre industrial society. Doesn't mean everyone did.

Myth.

And age. I used to do this fine in my 20s. 30s not so much.

Y'all be joking about this but they yanked my baby out with a damn suction cup stuck to his head. Guy looks like he the baby on Coneheads.

Ok, and when google starts deploying Gmail to old t440s running fedora I'll tell them the reliability "just as good as debian".

Yes. The manager has failed you. Doesn't mean you should put your ass on the line to fix things for the business.

That's why these kind of incentive structures are dangerous and why things like OKRs put such heavy emphasis on regular, company wide, failure. (I.e. they punish 100success rates)

I think if you're finding debian too slow you're probably not valuing stability to the same level.

That's not a problem with debian, that's just a mismatch in needs, you're probably better off with a "less" stable operating system.

I've had arch running for a solid 7 years the only instability I've had to deal with is when a kernel update broke Bluetooth on my desktop.

What instability did you face?

Or you know, you lot could stop giving them money.

Cache is for user specific, non essential data.

I'd prefer a multigigabyte download went in state or data dirs if you don't want to lose it regularly.

It's just ads because YouTube serves you think most clickbaity thing that will keep your eyeballs on screen (for the ads). Homepage doesn't care about discovery at all that's just a side effect.

I think maybe you should stop subscribing to channels you don't like?

All these are nice features but until I see suse wiki pages in google search results along side the ones I see from arch, it's just easier to stay on arch.

> Open Build System and OpenQA, for automated building and testing of packages. This is what gets updates to their rolling release Tumbleweed faster than Arch, but with no instability ever.

Arch also has "no instability ever". And I don't think I've ever run into a problem where I've said, "damn, I wish the latest version was out right now", other than needing to run mainline on new machines for a few months that is.

But please don't take this comment the wrong way, I'm curious and will probably spin up a VM or two to take a look around.

Isn't that just gpl2?

You guys use the home screen? It's just ads. Watch the subscription feed.

Xdg isnt just config. Using .config (xdg config) on Mac is super weird.

Xdg is also, .cache (xdg cache dir) for data that can be cleared on reboot allowing you to use tempfs for it (of course you can't because a bunch of shit uses it as a persistent cache for things they should be putting in .local/share/. (Xdg data dir).

This whole mess is so utterly fucked I gave up caring and just let the mess be.

Yup, and that reproducing it is a copyright violation.

Still a copyright abolitionist though. Maybe now more people will join the fight?

Yes, it defines the structural bounds your CSS is able to manipulate. It doesn't dictate how it needs to be manipulated other than a rough idea about what things will render out in what order. (I'd hardly call that presentation)

The key point here is that CSS exists precisely because html markup isn't enough on its own to style itself. If it was, CSS wouldn't exist.

The idea that something like tailwind can come in with a bunch of fine grained CSS classes and solve this inate complexity is laughable at best and wildly unprofessional at worst.

It just shows a complete lack of understanding about what html is and isn't and why CSS even exists in the first place.

Fwiw, I get it. Tailwind is a neat shorthand script you can use to pump out trash you'll never look at again. For the rest of us doing actual work on things that we'll need to modify 6 months from now I'd much prefer something readable that I can actually have a hope of modifying even if a teammate wrote the thing.

I never suggested decoupling html and CSS, that is always going to be coupled through selectors.

What I suggested was decoupling presentation (actual CSS rules) from structure, the blocks of html.

What I'm discussing here is if CSS rules should be inlined in html, whether through tailwind pseudo css or style tags the result is the same.

Further caveat, the article mentions that switching to a CSS file is a context switch. Put it in a style tags next to your html for all I care, colocation is great as a general rule, inlining CSS in html style attributes is not.

This is settled thinking at this point: inlining CSS results in short term benefits to productivity at the cost of long term costs due to brittle presentation that is expensive to change.

And given how low the cost of extracting reusable css classes is these days, I don't think tailwind will ever win.

Because they're not both style info? Html is a markup language, it applies semantic structure to your content, CSS styles html.

Classes are a tool for selecting markup to style. Sure, you can create a class for every single CSS rule you write, but just because you can doesn't mean you should.

"trivial"?

So I still have to componentize my presentation layers to do tailwind "correctly", but instead of writing CSS in readable multiline chunks in a language every developer already knows, I need to use this cryptic one liner in any order that literally nobody can read?

What in the hell is wrong with this industry? Sometimes clever ideas aren't all that clever. Sometimes they're just dumb.

What's up with the colocation argument? Colocation of markup and business logic makes a lot of sense.

Colocation of presentation? Why do you even need that? Presentation is abstracted into CSS by design.

Having presentation decoupled allows you to abstract around visual elements on a page at their instead of having to sufficiently wrap everything in divs classes just to the right level to make the CSs classes work.