Comments by "" (@diadetediotedio6918) on "Theo - t3․gg" channel.

  1. me as well, I perceived this like months before today hahahahaha
    2
  2. There are a bunch of chinese named and written strange packages as well in npm (with binary content in files)
    2
  3. I don't think anybody was "pretending angular doesn't exist". But you are right in something, itr is for "money-making business", it has all the bullshit talk and style corporations like and go hard in this direction, don't change the fact it is only <one> of the tools that are money-making, react is also one of those and angular people love to shit on react a lot as well.
    2
  4. It is literally impossible for you to not compare past scenarios with AI, it is [what people do]. If you don't do this you are completely in the fog, there's nothing to be said and you would be purely another futurologist.
    2
  5.  @GateOfSteins  It's more like "Good for y'all, all my driving will be done by a tesla car" rather than a cars and horses comparison.
    2
  6.  @szirsp  Those are VERY unintuitive behaviors, it is not expected that most people would know about those. This "oh no, look he does not know this and he is a web dev" is a very weird conversation, almost too weird.
    2
  7.  @dryk-sdjberg  "I agree and seeing how Rust has largely been rejected by engineers" Source: Times New Roman
    2
  8. 42:00 But this is just, bad. You should not try to analyze people this way, principally if you don't know the people enough, you will certainly treat people like statistics.
    2
  9. Do HTMX work for client-side only things?
    2
  10. Would not it be clearer in react if you just made an utility, like: function effect({ deps, run, cleanup }: { deps: any[], run: () -> void, cleanup: () -> void }) { useEffect(() => { run(); return cleanup; }, deps); } that you can then use like this: effect({ deps: [slug], run: () => { ... }, cleanup: () => { ... } }) I feel like at least some of the problems with useEffect is that it is too much quirky to use, so wrapping it maybe provide some benefits.
    2
  11.  @lucas-barake  Chad
    2
  12.  @hola_chelo  HTMX is server-dependent, depending upon the application you make and who is consuming it the experience could be worse.
    2
  13. For the average reader: Maybe 23,540 persons that are already biased to searching about and answering this kind of survey are not a good measure of adoption. But at least I can concede it is somewhat interesting information.
    2
  14.  @alex-rs6ts  Nah, I'm good. OpenAI still have not fired any of their engineers.
    2
  15.  @Skyb0rg  The password manager can have pishing prevention as well by just checking the URL's for you, this is not a counter-argument.
    2
  16. Oh boi, TypedCSS is coming now! Just joking, of course (well...), but anyway this idea is interesting, there are valid use cases for having those custom functions in making reusable styles.
    1
  17. ​ @pedroalonsoms  classic brazillian "let's unify instead of competing" take
    1
  18.  @RomanTchekashov  I'm sorry, I just don't agree with you. I literally worked on many angular projects, in EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THOSE the pattern was extremely giant components with 700+ lines of code and templates that were an absolute mess. Not to talk about state management being scattered all around. Angular is just not good in leading unexperienced devs to good solutions, it will make them do the most messy thing they can because the framework has so much unneeded friction that it makes making a simple component a job of using a cli + having 4 or more files (in default). It is just not good. Obviously I also find some amusing things about angular, in some kinds of projects that structure shines, but certainly it is not for "unexperienced developers who need guidelines" (unexperienced developers just don't follow guidelines). Nor React nor angular can solve the problem of having messy codebases, I think React induces some great problems with his extremely wasting rendering model, but Angular is not much off the track. React at least makes making smaller components easier which in turn makes refactoring those generally simpler as well.
    1
  19. Regulations are just a byproduct of itchiness in a random regulator butt, it is simple as that, no need to argue about how is this a bad thing because it will not change how they act. When the itchiness comes, more regulations.
    1
  20.  @zeddash  It is only turing complete with HTML + user input currently, if I remember correctly.
    1
  21. As for the points: 1. reasonable 2. This is a bad response, it ALSO means the developers are bad, but it don't refute the claim that electron has terrible performance (because you are shipping a whole fricking browser with every application). Both of those things can be true, and they can both affect the end result. Telegram desktop app is one example of how a marvelous engineering makes a native app extremely faster, so much more than any electron app ever was. 3. reasonable Other than that, Electron is "fine", it's not an optimal technology, but it is usefull. My problem with it is more on how it is extremely overused rather than on it being slow, but it being slow is also part of it.
    1
  22. 12:00 At this point is not this just reinventing poe?
    1
  23.  @LaughingRam  If this was what you could extract from what I said, sure, HAHAHAHAHAHA.
    1
  24.  @jatinkumar7287  I read it, I just don't find this convincing enough. Feature parity makes more sense than testing the "normal operation of the framework" because the framework can do something that is very convenient but at the same time very expensive in the baseline. But if you wanted the same speed than fastify without that feature, removing it opt-in would be a thing you would already have in mind when chosing the technollogy. You can clearly see it by thinking about it this way: If you remove something that do matter and will make the features of solidjs less than the features of fastify, it would be very easy to just use it as an argument and say that "solid is only as fast or faster if we remove something that makes it good", but in the case of removing hydration it appears to not put it below fastify in any way, so the only perspective that benefits itself on not using that benchmark is fastify. Of course, you can also argue that we should prioritize the "out of the box experience" in that benchmark, which would be fair, but from the article this did not appear to be their intent.
    1
  25.  @tedarcher9120  Similar ones are tho.
    1
  26. I was more interested in a rewrite I saw a guy doing of TypeScript that would make it's types actually mean something
    1
  27. Yeah, civet lost me at this: switch x 0 console.log("zero") /^\s+$/ console.log("whitespace") [{type: "text", content}, ...rest] console.log("leading text", content) What the heck is that supposed to look like?
    1
  28. ​ @MrMudbill  Which you don't know a priori, so this comment is pointless.
    1
  29.  @alex-rs6ts  I think this question is capcious in and on itself, it already assumes AGI is possible in the first place.
    1
  30. I'm cool with brave, I don't remember the last time I was annoyed with crypto stuff.
    1
  31. 6:57 Just try angular, make a relatively big project with it, and watch your development server explode with updates taking 1-60 seconds each update you make to components that are used in a lot of places. The experience is definitively astonishing.
    1
  32.  @pakoottox262  I don't think the extremely large loading times are due to me being "bad at coding in angular", feel free to prove your statement tho.
    1
  33. Nowadays after 1990 there are those magical things called LSPs that allows you to simply search for keywords as if they were in a database, you know?
    1
  34. Not even close to that, lol. I know at least some that struggles with even basic programming.
    1
  35. I will believe in you when you start to actually make new theories and hypothesis using it and make your name, dear physicist.
    1
  36.  @PrajwalDSouza  I did some tests with it, and while it is clearly way better in "reasoning" (if you think this word apply here) I don't think it is qualitatively better as people are pointing out. I tricked it pretty easily for example with some indirection in the problems I gave it, like try formulating a problem with a deceiving conclusion that anyone would catch if they really solved the problem but that is not obvious enought so it is untangled from the bigger problem, it will probably fail and try to justify the tricky part within the framing of the bigger problem instead of noticing they are contradictory. I think the "memorized how to reason" in the video is a good way of putting it, even if not entirely accurate, for this particular reason. But anyway, glad to be proven wrong and hopping the o1 (not preview) will be better, if it really solves problems in physics then we will have many advancements in technollogy very soon, if not, well, at least it was a funny toy.
    1
  37.  @viinisaari  talk is cheap.
    1
  38. ​ @deatho0ne587  Because it is not needed. Or better formulating, what <angular devs> call separation of concerns is not an universla definition that everyone else should bow and agree, it is something that is debatable and in react can be also formulated as component = concern.
    1
  39. ​ @deatho0ne587  I think those benefits in maintenance certainly exist to a certain degree, but you must also recognize that those benefits come with drawbacks both in maintenance and in other aspects (such as literally everything in tech). As long as you can recognize you are making a tradeoff, which you think are better than the ones I'm making, I'm okay with it. I also recognize my tradeoffs, but I like the benefits of having everything in one singular location better (like having the entire thing in my head and not needing to swap around to find the template update logic, the less amount of boilerplate or similar things).
    1
  40. Nice try CEO of google, next time use a better fake account.
    1
  41. I would be concerned when OpenAI fire their engineers and use o3 in their place. Until them it is another bullcrap.
    1
  42. Where did functional programmers touched you sweety?
    1
  43. It would simply be better to be able to write this: ``` const x = try { 10 } catch(e) { 'lol' } ``` like most decent languages nowadays.
    1
  44.  @iLiran  Why can't you compare "anything that happened before" with the "current situation", exactly?
    1
  45.  @J3R3MI6  Sure buddy, you can stick to your new secular religion, but know it won't save you.
    1
  46. Angular is still very crap tho, talking as someone that uses it in a daily basis. If they manage to make smaller components easier to make and not needing to take a whole file (or, at least, with templates and styles in the same file that are not just javascript backtick strings) maybe my opinion will change to a more positive stance, but not now.
    1
  47. I don't think the paradox of choice is a real problem, these are competing products with very different capabilities, you cannot escape this kind of choice making when you have a market.
    1
  48. You don't need to use implicit returns, but they are indeed useful. Sometimes for quick prototyping they are everything you need, and most of the times TS can correctly infer the return types based on what you effectively returned, so unless you are doing something very wrong (and are unable to hover the function to see what it infered or enable type hints) it should suffice.
    1
  49. Immediate mode UIs are generally extremely simple in terms of layouting and style, this is the part of the picture you are missing. Rendering the DOM is slow because: (1) We use JS to do it (2) It is retained mode, so all the changes are cached and rendered the minimum as possible (3) The layouting and styling system of modern HTML + CSS is [extremely complex], it allows you to do a huge amount of positioning, calculations, transformations, event based styles, very compound and complicated responsive layouts, animations, etc... all of those things take time, and they are pretty slow to work It is a different beast altogether.
    1
  50.  @HolyMacaroni-i8e  We do know currently only animals possess it, so we have a good reason to say AI will never have it.
    1