Wow, this is fortuitous for me. I've been wanting something like this for quite some time, and was literally just thinking about it this morning. I've had a lot of ideas for certain small side projects that have ended up dead in the water, because I really didn't want to even risk being liable for the type of user data I would be storing.
This solution is perfect for an application that's targeting privacy focused users. I often don't sign up for services these days because I don't care for the possibility that the maintainer of the site is just casually reading through my data.
Some great use cases could be journaling, note taking, a private wiki, etc. For note taking, I actually use Standard Notes (https://standardnotes.org/) precisely because of its end to end encryption.
For me the lack of password reset is a non issue (especially with modern password managers), something that I gladly trade for the peace of mind that some random developer with database access isn't reading through my private stuff. Obviously if you built something on top of this, you would need to properly educate your users on the tradeoff they're taking.
> The real downside to beetus is having to think about it constantly, IMO
Pretty much this. Obviously needles and finger pricks are a bigger deal for some people, but most diabetics get used to it fairly quickly. The hard part is the constant mental drain of having to be your own pancreas. It's like you're constantly flying a plane where you have to manually maintain a certain altitude, because you'll crash and die if you fly too low or too high. It's exhausting.
Thanks for details. Here's my response to most of them (some of this is definitely anecdotal of course).
> - Slow debug cycle due to increased compile time. If using TDD, it takes longer to run tests. The delays adds up.
I've not personally encountered any significant compiling overhead in comparison to a regular Babel ES6 transpile. Obviously depends on project size, but there are a lot of tweaks that you can do to speed it up. I've had good luck with ts-loader.
> - Sporadic source mapping issues/bugs which makes it hard to fix things (I had an issue with Mocha tests last week where it was always telling me that the issue was on line 1). I've worked with TypeScript on multiple projects across different companies but every single time, there has been source mapping or configuration issues of some kind.
Are you advocating ES6 instead of TypeScript? It seems like all modern JS hits a transpilation stage before it hits the browser these days, and I see the same source mapping issues whenever I use ES6/7 with Babel + Webpack.
> - Type definitions from DefinitelyTyped are often out of date or have missing properties/methods. It means that I can't use the latest version of a library.
Fair point, although I haven't run into this much myself.
> - Third party libraries are difficult to integrate into my project's code due to conflicts in type names or structural philosophy (e.g. they leverage types to impose constraints which are inconsistent with my project requirements).
Not sure I follow, do you have an example?
> - Doesn't guarantee type safety at runtime; e.g. If parsing an object from JSON at runtime; you still need to do type validation explicitly. The 'unknown' type helps but it's not clear that this whole flow of validating unknown data and then casting to a known type adds any value over regular schema validation done in plain JavaScript.
I mostly agree with this, which is why my strategy is just to do regular JS style schema validation where necessary, and then cast the object, rather than relying on `unknown`.
> - Compiler warnings make it hard to test code quickly using console.log(...); I'm more reliant on clunky debuggers which slows me down a lot and breaks my train of thought.
Not sure I fully follow. If your code compiles to the point where you can use the debugger, you should have been able to use a console.log as well, right?
> - Whenever I write any class/method, I have to spend a considerable amount of time and energy thinking about how to impose constraints on the user of the library/module instead of assuming that the user is an intelligent person who knows what they're doing.
If you're writing code used by others, you need to be clear about what your API expects and allows anyway, so why not be explicit about it, in a way that the compiler can enforce? An intelligent person makes mistakes, so why not see if you can give the computer the ability to catch some of those for you? And TypeScript still gives an intelligent user the ability to supersede your type restrictions if they absolutely need to.
> - It takes a lot of time think of good names for interfaces and they are renamed often as project requirements evolve. It's not always clear whether similar concepts should be different types or merged into one. It often comes down to what constraints you want to impose on users; This adds a whole layer of unnecessary mental work which could have been better spent on thinking about logic only.
I don't think coming up with good interface names is more difficult than good class or method names. And I'd argue that thinking about the constraints you want to impose on users is important for developing maintainable code -- whether you're doing type checking or not. And ultimately those constraints still have to exist in some manner, but without type checking the "constraint" will be the code breaking in some undefined way. By doing so you save yourself and others the mental overhead of trying to figure out what types you're dealing with at any point in your code base, or what types you're expected to pass into any given function. The initial overhead of thinking about your types pays off quickly.
> - Setting up TypeScript is a pain.
Anecdotal, but I've never had much of a problem with it (for React users, I believe you can get it for free in create-react-app now). And it's a one time setup cost anyway.
One interesting thing about Dark Souls is that there is quite a bit of ambiguity around what the "age of dark" actually implies, and there's a lot of hints that it might actually be a beneficial state for humanity.
Personally I found Bloodborne to be even more hopeless. It's all based on a Lovecraftian view of the universe, where we're completely insignificant next to these higher order beings and concepts. There are also almost no happy endings for any of the NPCs, which contrasts with Dark Souls a bit. But again, that's a really good translation of Lovecraft into video game form!
Yes, but you still need insulin on keto. In fact, starting keto can be dangerous for a T1D at first until you find out what your new, lower, requirements are. You put yourself at risk of hypoglycemia, so you have to be extra careful with dosing while you're figuring it out. Because of that, a closed loop artificial pancreas could be incredibly helpful for a T1D going on keto as well.
For me it would have the same things that make Typescript appealing:
- Full access to a large and mature ecosystem (one that Crystal doesn't quite have)
- The ability to gradually add typing to an existing Ruby codebase. No need to rewrite an entire application. Just gradually add types to new code and during refactors.
If I was starting a new project I would definitely be considering Crystal, but I still feel like something like this would be great. Typescript has been a godsend for my frontend development life, and I would love to have something like this for my backend Ruby development.
> i fail to see the benefit of a language like Crystal.
For me it's a Ruby like language with static typing. For my typical use cases I don't really need the extra performance, but those two things are enough to make me interested.
I've been a fan of Ruby for about 5 years, but lately I've been leaning a lot more heavily towards statically typed languages. Which is why Crystal is at the top of my "want to learn" list. Ruby inspired syntax and statically typed? Yes please. The speed is just a bonus for me.
5% for conservative and 7% for aggressive would have been better choices...I know the goal was to make this calculator simple, but those values should have be configurable with saner defaults.
I'd recommend trying out create-react-app if you want to learn React without having to worry about all the build tooling craziness. Eventually you'll have to start fighting with those if you build some real life stuff, but create-react-app is great for just getting up and running so you can learn the actual library (the fun stuff) first.
styled-components are actually really nice, so I don't think it's fair to say "styling is React's worst part". This seems like a more general criticism of React's agnosticism when it comes to so many things. React falls more heavily on the library spectrum than the framework one. It's rather un-opinionated about a lot of things: styling, state management, routing, code organization, etc. Definitely not something that's unique to styling.
On the one hand this offers a lot of flexibility to do things the way you want, but also makes the learning curve a lot steeper. Honestly I would love for somebody to build a more full fledged framework around React that makes most of the decisions for you. A sort of "good for 90% of use cases" setup. (I guess create-react-app is sort of like that? You still have to make too many decisions, I think.)
Believe me, I'm more than aware of the negative side effects and potential dangers (especially with Xiidra, which is a new medication without long term studies). Xiidra is costing me about $200 a month, after insurance. But in my case it was literally the last ditch measure, because I had tried everything my ophthalmologist suggested as well as every "home remedy" out there. (When you have severe dry eyes stuff like yawning is not going to help.)
For me, Xiidra has been the only thing that's given me relief. The side effects have been fairly minimal (stinging for a minute or two, somewhat blurry vision for up to 20 minutes) and my life is mostly back to normal now. But the cost and lack of long term studies of the medication prevent me from recommending it unless you and your ophthalmologist have determined that there are no better options.