Don’t know about tailwind but I used styled-components and not going back to vanilla css. CSS seems to be designed to be used with HTML, which did make sense back when it was created. Modern web is 99% JS and components composition which does not work well with Vanilla CSS in terms of class name uniqueness, specificity. Also it easy to dumb shit with CSS, like, I worked in the project where we had a lot of legacy global CSS. We had like dozen CSS styles which were adding margin to <label/>, <p> and so on. I mean no classes, just globally. I’ve been forced to add ‘all: unset’ to basically all my new components just to avoid changing global styles and breaking something else. Do not recommend.
- 3 Posts
- 20 Comments
It’s not like I’m deciding on customer’s IT policy
I’m doing cloud migration now and one of assumptions is that two regions in Americas is enough for resilience. I’m in danger
Nope, JS is “You think you are nerd”.
Also, why React is there? It’s a lib not a language
PRs should be exactly as big (or small) as task requires. It’s task that needs to be split into smaller task, if it makes sense to split of course.
Lysergid@lemmy.mlto Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ@lemmy.dbzer0.com•Finally got a copyright warning from ISP - ReminderEnglish5·5 months agoIn Poland you can download but not allowed to upload/seed. I don’t know is that the way law written or it’s just not enforced.
Lysergid@lemmy.mlto Showerthoughts@lemmy.world•Whenever I see someone walking around in clothes with big, visible branding, I can’t help but think they paid a fortune to wear an advertisement.72·8 months agoSee no problem as long as person genuinely likes branding, not because “flex”. For example i have Adidas Original hoodie and I like it has huge logo coz it’s iconic design of hoodie from golden era of hip-hip and break dance. I would never wear same from other brand or even “three stripes” logo from the same brand.
Library built this way because it supposed to be flexible and provide ground for complex usecases. It can only be flexible if your API works with simple abstractions which you can then compose. It’s not driven by “I need this specific utility for this specific scenario”. That would be zoo you have in JS where you have 10 ways to iterate over array and 9 of them wrong for your scenario.
Java’s OO is great because they design library with SRP in mind making sure there is few but good ways to do things.
BufferedReader cannot accept file name because it makes arbitrary reader… well buffered. It’s not BufferedFileReader, even that would accept something like Path or File, not string, because File can be remote file, should Reader now know all possible local and remote protocols and path formats? What else it must do?
Having it designed the way it is, allows Java to have utilities for various scenarios. Your scenario covered by standard lib too. See Files.readAllLines which, surprise-surprise, built on top of BufferedReader.
Char count is poor complexity metric. Perl is better than Python with your logic as it is more condensed.
Can anyone actually tell what exactly complicated in Java? Verbose, maybe it was at some point but I find it very straightforward and easy.
I don’t know german but it seems to be more logical to have one word for “health insurance card” since it describes one class of objects. Better than spelling 3 nouns where one partially describes what object is and other nouns act like clarification
Kinda, I guess we all can agree it’s more typical to deserialize into POJO where theres is no such thing as missing field. Otherwise why would you choose Java if you don’t use types. This great precondition for various stupid hacks to achieve „patching” resources, like blank strings or negative numbers for positive-only fields or even Optional as a field.
How about SQL in PostgreSql? query:
select array_length(Array[]::text[], 1)
Output: nullDont get me wrong JS is still awful
Lysergid@lemmy.mlto Programmer Humor@programming.dev•Not really sure whether S-expressions or Python indentation-based scoping get more hate...812·1 year agoNo it’s how Python wants you to format. Many times I want to separate two logical sections in one function and can’t coz Python go crazy
Lysergid@lemmy.mlto Firefox@lemmy.ml•Why I’m Joining Mozilla as Executive Director | The Mozilla Blog323·1 year agoCoz money?
Lysergid@lemmy.mlto Programmer Humor@programming.dev•Welcome to the wonderful world of code obfuscation211·2 years agoweekend = dayOfWeek > 5
Lysergid@lemmy.mlto Technology@beehaw.org•States sue Meta claiming its social platforms are addictive and harm children's mental health17·2 years agoI like (no) how everyone knows this is about everybody’s mental health but you can only push things these days if iT iS aBoUt cHilDrEn or other touchy topic. Apparently adults can’t have mental health issues I guess, otherwise how will they do their jobs for cents
It’s called replica :)
Don’t get me wrong, I’d always choose html over js if I could. My problem with css, and web in general, that it’s too fragmented. It’s like those people who are designing css, html, js and browsers didn’t speak to each other whatsoever. So now there is entire industry of js frameworks to glue all shit together. Like, look at the WebComponents. Which supposed to be native, out of the box replacement. So much effort and they still cannot compete, in some cases they simply do not provide basic features needed to build complex UIs. Next time I can choose stack I’ll probably just go with htmx