For an IDE.
I can configure VSCode as a full IDE for say C#/.Net development, and it performs pretty much just as well as VS which is written natively.
Ditto for configuring it as a Python IDE vs PyCharm, ditto for Java and Eclipse, ditto for basically everything else.
And Iâm sorry but I have to respectfully disagree here: VIM / Neovim / any purely text based editor has never had anywhere near the same feature set as VS Code + itâs extensions. They are more performant, run anywhere, and can be configured to be quite powerful, but theyâre still fundamentally hamstrung by using a typewriterâs line by line interface rather than being able to easily draw arbitrary 2d or 3d graphics and use the power of CSS styling.
Like, just drawing out a list of items, and then being able to get more detail on one of those items, is fundamentally a pain in command line, requiring a list command and then an item detail command or a list verbose command, where is in a GUI you just list items and can then expand them or hover on them for more info.
As a casual js user (I build some static sites for fun and personal use), I am under the impression that JavaScript âsucksâ mostly because some things really make it look like JavaScript was invented as a quick scripting tool rather than the backbone of the WWW.
Iâll bring an example that maybe helps me learning someting. Why in javasctipt â1â == 1? I know the === operator exists, but why isnât the default behaviour the safer one? Especially when the mantra is âdonât trust the userâ.
Like, I get, I am a strongly-typed guy, but I see why weakly-type languges exists, but this feel frankly moronic, and all the answers Iâve seen are " because thatâs how it is". Thatâs just copium.
Like, youâre not entirely wrong here. The == vs === is entirely just a legacy of a poor early decision in the languageâs development.
However, the reason that itâs still there isnât just âbecause thatâs how it isâ, itâs to maintain backwards compatibility. You could break the language and change your equality operators to something more sensible, but to do so would result in:
- A) If you make a new language that compiles to Javascript (like Typescript for instance), you can maintain compatibility, but you do now need to build a bunch of tooling around compilers and debugging so that you can trace errors in the compiled and running javascript back to your own code. In any situation where you have a codebase that contains a mix of the two, youâve got to remember and stay on top of which to use where.
- Or B) If you make a new dedicated language that runs in browsers, now browsers need to ship two engines, one for legacy javascript web sites and apps, and one for whatever your new language is. Same issues with mixing legacy and new code.
OR the real answer is C) devs just add linters that check your code for common mistakes. All modern javascript dev environments will include a linter that yells at you if you accidentally use the == sign, right in your IDE as you type it, making it not really a big deal, and autocomplete will automatically use ===.
And maintaining backwards compatibility for the Internet / World Wide Web, is probably the single most important place to maintain backwards compatibility, as it is effectively a continuous archive of information and publications. Putting up with === is honestly not that big of a deal in the context of all the above.
Like, I get, I am a strongly-typed guy, but I see why weakly-type languges exists,
I got my start with Java and C#, then Python, then Javascript, then Typescript / etc. etc. Trust me, I vastly prefer a good type system, which is why I use Typescript for everything I can these days. It is still technically weakly typed in that you donât get type errors at runtime, just at compile time, but it still makes coding in javascript soooo much nicer and more pleasant and more predictable, and itâs quite frankly the most flexible and easy to use Type system / syntax of any language that Iâve used.
Also when I tried to compile a single Cordova app to play around I needed some 5GB of npm modules that totalled ~200k files! Is that how modern app development is like?
I mean, Cordova is not just a web app platform. Thatâs including the toolchain to build a web app, but also do compile it into an Android app, or to compile it into an iOS app. Youâve basically got large chunks of the android and ios sdks in there.
Also, the particular webpage OP linked might be a little extreme, but modern software does suck ass, and is not user-friendly nor efficient.
Just look at mobile communication apps, like Teams. The user experience is terrible, the UI is unrespive, the battery drain is crazy and it takes 800MB of space.
Yes, because of corporate practices that prioritize feature development instead of addressing tech debt or performance. But thatâs not always the case. I worked at Meta for a stint as a contract developer, Iâve seen how they make decisions and theyâre not uninformed. They will run A/B testing on simulated apps to measure exactly how much of a difference performance makes, and then balance that against the effort it will take vs the effort it will take to develop new features and then they prioritize accordingly.
No where else Iâve worked does that. Everywhere else just hears a customer or executive yell for a new feature and then the PM just starts working on it without proper research or without giving teamâs time to go back and address tech debt.
Is this because itâs an electron app, or because itâs made by incompetent programmers? I donât know, but we made incredible hardware improvements in personal computing, new software should be even more efficient and use them better, not get more and more bloaty to have the same experience on older and newer hardware
Given that VSCode is made by the same company, is also an electron app, and is generally remarkably performant, I would posit that teams is made by worse programmers since itâs a less attractive product to work on, and the team is probably less user focused since users donât buy their software, the usersâ workplaces do.
Do you know how you make good web apps with good performance? You donât listen to people whining and bitching about a language, you go out and start coding something and find out where the actual issues are.
Javascript / Typescript is great. There are little annoyances here and there, like with literally every single language, but anyone who says it sucks overall is a quite frankly, a moron.
Our project focuses on advanced and experienced computer users. In contrast with the usual proprietary software world or many mainstream open source projects that focus more on average and non-technical end users, we think that experienced users are mostly ignored. This is particularly true for user interfaces, such as graphical environments on desktop computers, on mobile devices, and in so-called Web applications. We believe that the market of experienced users is growing continuously, with each user looking for more appropriate solutions for his/her work style.
Designing simple and elegant software is far more difficult than letting ad-hoc or over-ambitious features obscure the code over time. However one has to pay this price to achieve reliability and maintainability. Furthermore, minimalism results in reasonable and attainable goals. We strive to maintain minimalism and clarity to drive development to completion.
You now what all of this says? It says that they focus on building utilities that accomplish some small technical task and ignore their usersâ actual workflow needs. Itâs the equivalent of minimalist architects that make unlivable spaces because theyâre technically nice.
In general, I disagree with you. I think the two things you fixated on (souless architecture and rentals) are bad approaches to density, but you will notice that for the most part, this is the form of âdensityâ that places who are notoriously bad at density do. Its what happens when we deliberately regulate ourselves into not allowing other options.
Soullessness and rent-seeking is what happens when housing is controlled by for-profit entities, and once you start building housing as system that is bigger, more expensive, or more complex, then one person / small family / support network can manage, then you inherently need to cede control and responsibility to a larger outside entity, which ends up being a corporation.
Even cities like Boston that have a relatively large amount of mid rise housing still have massive housing costs that suck residents dry because it all ends up being landlord controlled.
Also, i would like to highlight that a very small portion of people are living in newly built homes, and only a small portion are really able to make meaningful design impact. Most just buy the builder-grade suburban model home. The idea that suburban single family homes are some design panacae is just wrong.
Iâm no fan of suburbs, but at an inherent level (assuming no crazy HOA), you have far more control of any house that you own over any space in a building that you do. Your average 100 year old suburban home will have far more charm and look far more unique than your average 100 year old apartment unit or condo.
That the dense city movement, of building up, instead of out, is ultimately ceding a huge proportion of our lives (our dwelling sizes and layouts, their materiality and designs, how the public space between them looks and feels, their maintenance and upkeep, etc. etc.) to soulless corporations trying to extract every dollar possible from us.
When we build out, people tend to have more say in the design and build of their own home, often being able to fully build it however they want because at a fundamental level a single person or couple can afford the materials it takes to build a home, and after itâs built they can afford to pay a local contractor who lives nearby to make modifications to it.
What they donât have, is the up front resources to build a 20 story condo building. So instead they can buy a portion of a building that someone else has already built, which leaves them with no say in what is actually built in the first place. Ongoing possible changes and customizations are very limited by the constraints of the building itself, and the maintenance and repairs have to be farmed out to a nother corporation with the specialty knowledge and service staff to keep building systems running 24/7.
Yes, this is more efficient from an operating standpoint, but itâs also more brittle, with less personal ownership, less room for individuality and beautification, and more inherent dependence on larger organizing bodies which always end up being private companies (which usually means people are being exploited).
In addition, when you expand outwards, all the space between the homes is controlled by the municipalities and your elected government, and you end up with pleasant streets and sidewalks, but when you build up with condos, you just have the tiniest dingiest never ending hallways with no soul.
And condos are the instance where you actually at least kind of own your home. In the case of many cities that densify, you end up tearing down or converting relatively dense single family homes into multi apartment units where you again put a landlord in charge, sucking as many resources out of the residents as possible. In the case of larger apartment buildings, youâve effectively fully ceded a huge portion of the âlast mileâ of municipal responsibilities to private corporations.
Yes, I understand all the grander environmental reasons about why we should densify, and places like Habitat 67 prove that density does not inherently have to be miserable and soulless, however, the act of densifying without changing our home ownership and development systems to be coop or publicly owned, is a huge pressure increasing the corporatization of housing.
Lol, Ed Zirtron is very paralleled.
Heâs pessimistic and cynical to the point of being conspiratorial and delusional.
Heâs someone to listen to when you want to hear someone go on an unhinged rant about the tech industry, not someone you listen to when you want to actually understand how it works.
I mean look at this trash article, he spends 5000 words saying effectively nothing. Things he could have explained by just linking to pre-existing, better written articles, instead, he rehashes everything in a snarky tone while skipping over some of the most important points (like training through distillation).
Is there another OAuth identity provider they should use? I agree that itâs ludicrous that advertising companies are the primary identity providers we use, but I have no issue with GitHub / Microsoft as an identity provider.
At the end of the day they could create their own account system and take on the liability of storing passwords, but why? Thatâs not what their software is about and as instance admins it will take away their time and focus.
At the end of the day I think what youâre chafing against is not their fault but a fundamental problem with open source software at the moment, we have no system of decentralized identity verification, and identity verification is basically a necessary part of ensuring your system isnât abused.
Those are all SaaS providers with meeting software available.
With paid for commercial meeting software available.
If someone was using Jitsi, it was specifically to not use a login with any of those providers.
Or because they didnât want to pay ongoing SAAS fees.
Theyâre actively deciding not to continue operation with this. Its like when OnlyFans declares they wouldnât allow adult content going forward
Itâs literally nothing like that since Onlyfans is not an open source project that lets you host your own instance and run it however you like.
If you want anonymity run it yourself. If you want to use their servers itâs reasonable that they expect to know a modicum about how to verify you are who you say you are. There is literally no other way to prevent abuse other than identity verification of bad actors.
As someone who has a One X, a Series S, and a Series X, I can assure you that you have no idea what youâre talking about.
The One X doesnât get used anymore and the Series S gets used ballpark more often than the series X. Pretty much all games play a very comparable experience on it compared to the series X, something that cannot be said about the One X.
This one.