Author here. SXO + Reactive Component offers a middle ground between full hydration and static HTML. By rendering semantic server-side JSX and using a 4.8KB client library to provide signal-based reactivity.
I'd love to hear what you think about this approach for web components architecture.
Documentation is an essential part of software development in the open-source world. We all know it's crucial, yet somehow, it always ends up as a collection of outdated markdown files and half-finished README.md lurking in our repositories. That's exactly why Query Docs exists—not to reinvent documentation but to make it actually work for both contributors and developers.
Hey, Query [1] creator here. The article raised some exciting challenges. With Query, we solve booth downsides mentioned in it. To keep things simple, we use EventSource for live reloading [2] and JSX Server-Side Rendering [3] for those who want component reuse in the server. It's just JSX with some helpful extras. I'm happy to elaborate on the technical decisions if anyone's curious.
Thank you for posting this. Fine work. I need to give it another read later, but for now, I find Thomas' iambs a little heavyweight. Every line has the same 4x(ba-DUM, ba-DUM) rhythm, with almost no variety. Frost has a lighter touch with meter.
> Is it hard essentially, or is it hard accidentally?
Not exactly either, but certainly a bit of both. Programming is hard primarily because it is so poorly understood. The entire field is in its infancy. Comparing it to art, I'm pretty sure we haven't even reached the "stick figures scrawled on a cave wall" stage yet. As Alan Kay pointed out we sure didn't invent an arch yet: http://squab.no-ip.com/collab/uploads/61/IsSoftwareEngineeri...
It's nice to see the Eve team trying to do something at least slightly different from the same-old, same-old. Even if it looks a lot like some horrors of yore (FoxPro) when I squint.
If you didn't catch The Economist's biases on a cursory reading of one issue, that's on you. Simply skimming one of the leader opinion pieces and comparing it to, e.g., a Krugman column, should tell you that the authors would come to blows.
Your comment simply says that your politics don't align with The Economist's.
I personally find the "he said, she said" style of reporting that purports to give a fair account of all sides intolerable and hypocritical. It often allows complete idiots to air their opinions in the name of presenting a "different" view. This lets the reporter subtly influence the reader while preserving the illusion of impartiality.
The Economist is a highly biased newspaper. Unlike nearly all other publications aspiring to high-brow status, it displays its biases openly.
Not entirely. Team control is a major part of it for companies, and history makes a huge difference to the experience. Slack servers allow the use of IRC clients, but I gave up on Colloquy almost immediately after seeing the benefits of history. For the right teams, the IRC+history combo can almost completely eliminate email use.
Also, Slack bought a company which did voice, video, and screen sharing. Since join.me went downhill, this will be a welcome addition to Slack.
On the subject of IRC: it wasn't fading all that strongly, IMO, at least for open-source and free software discussions. Then Slack came along. Startling to see a proprietary clone of IRC (albeit with some nice extra features, namely history) come along and start taking over. See, e.g., the Clojurians Slack community.
One thing about this case puzzles me, and none of the news coverage I found explains it: what code did he actually take?! Details matter. Was it a tweak of something like Samba (obviously GPL)? Or was it part of a proprietary risk management system, derivatives models, or other direct money-making programs?
If he took the former, then I'd side with him — he took nothing of genuine value. If he took the latter, then, très uncool. (I witnessed several incidents of model theft while serving time on Wall Street in the mid-2000s, and none were publicly pursued like this one.)