It compleletly varies by subreddit. Generalizations like this are lazy.
2,661 karma · joined November 26, 2018
I’ve been using Reddit since 2008, a dozen accounts, only got banned from one subreddit ever for calling out racism (actual, not the deflated, wishy-washy kind). It’s hard to take these stories at face value.
I'm paying hundreds of dollars to use the IDE. The least they could do is integrate well with other harnesses (like every other text editor in the world does).
Except instead of just apples and oranges, there are several dozen fruits involved, and it takes a month to fully taste and digest any of them enough to decide whether they’re worth eating. And by then, there might be an improved cultivar of one of the fruits you tried before but decided wasn’t good enough.
Only speaking for myself, but these streaming services would need to increase costs A LOT to make me invest valuable time replacing them.
Does this mean they literally need to go in and check a box? Or is it a standard thing that enterprise accounts get these later than the consumer/API accounts?
If we're looking for a silver lining, AI is an equalizer and creates competition among the mediocre, driving salaries down. It's not all bad.
From the OED. The predominant use of "Luddite" has been disparaging for a long time.
You can debate whether it should be or not, but it's not reasonable to criticize conventional use.
The web page presents ax as a typical developer tool, but it's actually not for developers.
Its lack of “quality” (always invoked in a metaphysical sense) isn’t a problem for most of its uses. It can automate, research, build boilerplate, and test way faster than a human.
Consider: MathML has a presentational schema and a content schema. The whole point of presentational MathML is the intermingling of concerns. If you want interoperable data, you use content MathML.
Interoperability is a noble goal, but if you want HTML to do everything you're already barking up the wrong tree.
Maybe there's an overwhelmingly positive case to be made for high-abstraction CSS with hidden structures. Outside those few select cases, we've known the tradeoffs for 25 years, and the added complexity is rarely worth it.
Instead of thinking of separation of concerns as a religious principle, think about what benefits it actually yields in the case of HTML.
When the markup is completely separated from its styling, this means that the CSS rules need a way to be mapped onto the DOM. This involves specific elements, organized a specific way. If anything is out of place in the markup, the properties may not apply as intended. Similarly, if the CSS doesn't account for DOM structures, then you need modify rules or add new ones.
This way of mapping is an implicit structure. It's something extra that's required, beyond the source code that's there. It can be computed by the browser, but it's not explicitly stated for a developer looking at the code to understand.
Contrast this with Tailwind, Tachyons, etc., where nearly all the structure is explicit, less complex, discoverable, and out in the open.
Hidden structure looks nice to the developer. The code "looks" clean. But understanding a code base's implicit structure is ephemeral, and there's inherent technical debt that will need to be repaid later.
Tailwind looks ugly, but there are no hidden abstractions or structures in the code, beyond its easy conventions and a minimal config file.
And, yes, there are ways to make high-abstraction CSS work, say, with a component library of known DOM patterns. But at that point, why not build the styles into the components directly, a la Tailwind, instead of adding complexity?
I can't be the only one who has no idea what this means. Do you mean high-abstraction classes that are bound to the DOM arbitrarily, and are difficult to change later? We've had 25+ years to see how that doesn't scale.
Do you mean Tailwind-style functional CSS written by hand? What would be the point of that?