I enjoyed the simulated phone screenshots, particularly the choice of House of the Trembling Madness, a great beer stockist and drinking establishment on Lendal in York. I would like to think that the name in the input field is deliberately slightly wrong, ready to be fixed by someone. (It's "House of the Trembling Madness" rather than "The House of Trembling Madness".) Gamification at another level :-)
If this intersection is of interest to you, so might Mason Currey's book Daily Rituals ("On the routines and working habits of 161 inspired minds, from Beethoven to Donald Barthelme, Kafka to Georgia O’Keeffe") which I've enjoyed very much (no affiliation), for similar reasons.
This looks intriguing and I'm definitely going to try it out. The clincher? Seeing the possibly gratuitous but ultimately wonderful use of ed in pane 0 in the screenshot.
Was that really necessary? The title of the item, to which the above reply was written, was "Solving Advent of Code with jq". So yes, "doing the same thing" here fits fine.
(Author of post here) Imposing constraints upon oneself is not a bad thing at all, I enjoy that approach (which was also why this time I constrained myself to `jq`). I didn't know that `column` could do so much, thanks for the pointer, btw.
There's a lot of references here to jq being 'arcane'. For me, one of the challenges in improving my jq fu has been to find examples of larger programs, from which to learn.
One thing that seems to be perhaps a misconception amongst some is that jq invocations are short and only 'one-liners', and that a 'real script' (in a 'real language') would be better in many cases. I think this lack of larger program examples probably helps to perpetuate this misunderstanding too.
Now you point that out, yes - it's true. I remember working through various BASIC PLUS programs that we were creating, a few lines at a time, and, yes, together. On the Superterm terminal there was an exciting element of danger as you might get your finger swiped by the print head as you pointed to a piece of code that needed refactoring :-)
I don't work for SAP, I do work in the SAP space (which extends far beyond what many people perhaps realise). I do use OpenUI5 quite extensively, so these are my thoughts, coming from direct usage experience.
You're wondering if it was useful. For me, it is extremely useful. It's a toolkit that has many features; I'll talk about a few of them.
It has full MVC support, where I can choose to define my views declaratively, in different ways, or imperatively, in JavaScript - I choose XML almost every time because, ironically, it's the most clean and concise and like other declarative approaches, it prevents me from mixing up my controller logic with my views.
It has server-side and client-side model support with very accomplished data binding mechanisms, all the power and features I need to handle collections, objects and individual data properties in my apps.
Many of the clients I work for are international and multi-language support (including RTL) is a requirement that OpenUI5 satisifies with ease.
There's plenty more, but the bottom line for me, when it comes to libraries, toolkits and frameworks is the question: "Does it make me more productive?" With OpenUI5, the answer is a resounding "Yes".
I've had conversations with many people about libraries in general, and more recently with toolkits like this in particular, and there will always be personal preferences, strongly held opinions, and even biases that are hard to explain. For me, the bottom line with any abstraction is that question above.