teniutza

Additional information can be found at https://www.smashingmagazine.com/2017/05/introducing-mavo/ and http://lea.verou.me/2017/05/introducing-mavo-create-web-apps... .

It does not have to be free. Just being able to bring my child and, later in the day, take then from where I work (or close by) would be as close to perfect as possible. I would happily pay, even 100%, if the company would facilitate an on-site daycare.

In regard to saving "a few minutes", I don't know how you (or other people) feel about it, but I'd happily spend more time with my child.

Ok, on a certain economic level it does make sense to not offer free food for thousands of people. I would expect, however, that a decent meal would not cost as much as it would in a downtown restaurant/café. Are there any infos on prices and food quality?

I don't work for a big company. Every morning I take my daughter to daycare before going to work. Although not far from where we live (2 km), I still need to drive in the opposite direction. This means an extra ~20 minutes per morning. That's just the trip. Add to it the lack of parking spaces and rapidly decreasing chance of finding one after a certain time point. Not to mention that I need wake up a 3 year old at an unreasonably early hour for any child... Having an on-site childcare center would make a lot of things more simple and pleasant for my entire family.

With so many people working there, I'll be like working in a small(-ish) town. I don't know if the article mentioned it or not, but I would expect that a company of that level would provide some perks, like free snacks. To an employee, it would be like a short stroll to grab a bagel, or whatever people in that region like to eat, with the exception of it being free. One could get used to it, I bet...

That's because of the EU citizenship, which allows the free movement of people. Obtaining a work permit might be a different thing, but I'm really just guessing here...

Joining the Schengen Area is an ongoing process. Romania is currently not a member state.

How is the UK different in this regard?

Why would "half a country" risk insecurity and (occasional) hostility from locals, to remain illegally in the UK, when there are quite a few other viable options within the EU?

I agree. There already was a (failed) "Romanian invasion" several years ago. Furthermore, the recent events & decisions have given the UK, at leas in my immigrant eyes, a relative sense of insecurity. I would personally not relocate without knowing how the brexiters would react towards immigrants, regardless of the legality of their stay.

Scott's blog is one of my favourites. Even when it's not .NET related, it's always entertaining.

That being said, I usually read Eric Lippert's blog (www.ericlippert.com) although, since he "switched dev environments", I find the topics less relevant (for me).

Yes, it's ES6/ES2015. It's a lambda function ("fat arrow notation"). In the parentheses you would specify the arguments. An empty pair of parentheses means that the function does not expect any parameters.

It Uses "fat arrow" functions (lambdas) to define function. It is "equivalent" (there are several differences here, like "const" and the context of the function) to:

   var h1 = function() {
     return makeElement(`h1`);
   }

Edited to reflect the valid point brought up in the comments

The company I work for has an app built with Angular 1.x (the backend is .NET). We started sensing that Angular was not best choice, especially when working with 3rd party components. There are other factors to, but they have been already mentioned in other comments. Long story short, we had enough of wrapping everything in $timeout and started looking at alternatives.

After some consideration, we were left with choosing between Vue.js and React. Coming from Angular the biggest plus was two-way-binding, Vue.js had a slight advantage. We then converted a "module" (not in JS jargon) using both frameworks.

In our experience, when switching from Angular 1.x to Vue.js, there's a sense of not changing much (we were still "declaring" logic in the templates) but nonetheless doing things better, simpler and faster. The React version needed a bit more time investment (we had no prior experience in our team; a colleague from another project helped us a bit by showing us how he implemented a project using React). In the end we chose React due to the wonderful combination between it and TypeScript. We suddenly had no more string templates and refactoring was a breeze (there are, of course other benefits as well).

What I'm trying to say is that, if you have Angular 1.x experience it's easier to switch Vue. I had fun porting the "module" to Vue and would have happily worked with it if the team had not chosen React. I consider "mixins" to be one of its killer features (would have made a lot of things easier with our app). Having said that, I don't consider React that hard to grasp and don't regret that the team picket it over Vue. As long as you remember the lifecycle, programming with it can be fun and easy. The React/TypeScript combination compensates for the lack of mixins and two-way-binding (I know, MobX, but I'm talking about the "vanilla" versions).