it was game-over to your opinion when you purchased their product and use a proprietary client to connect to the their proprietary servers.
If they want to break every single feature, while also denying access to older versions of the client, there's nothing you can do. Besides cancelling the membership, that is. But in this case there is nothing the changelog that would have helped you.
...all that is the complete opposite of Mozilla though.
Saying to your boss that the VP of something is incompetent and made a crappy site will get you fired. Saying there's this new Tech at google coded by god himself will get you a new cost-center and a promotion.
For the company, it will turn out as nice as it turned out to all those places renting mainframe contracts well into the 2000s.
There are some irony on the text, but to understand this is very naive.
The critic is at malicious/dumb people who latch to technologies without understanding them.
For argument sake, see how many people are defending coreOS etc, and how they claim to have decided to like it based on their superb expertise, yet they will likely fail to explain to you chroot or anything else containers are based on. Or how they will proclaim that LXC is pure garbage and Docker is better (i will not explain the joke, let them downvote :)
Bottom line: we are being sold bad ideas from the past, in new clothing, by the incompetents/malicious people, which megacorp is made of.
So your response to him pointing out that the author talks in absolutes, and tries to shit on any tech he doesn't like...is to talk in absolutes and shit on tech you don't like, with little jabs and dumb in jokes? Very convincing.
Read my comment again and you will notice there's not a single comment against or in favour of tech. Not even an adjective next to tech, only to people.
The comment is exactly that some people can't tell the difference between two completely identical techs, just because they buy the marketing of one of them, despite it being a brand on top of the first.
describe the steps to release the simplest ever code in javascript to production: write a js file, host it, done.
The same thing in TS adds at least one step (not to mention the rest of the tooling you will want)
So while a prefer it over JS, there's no arguing that it is more complex as now you require a build step for a language that only exist because people wanted a language without a build step.
A lot of fortune 500 companies with some developers who missed the trendy stuff still do it that way. I made a medium size website (30 pages) in React with pure javascript and dependencies being script tags in index.html to vendored files.
So not even JSX. I did it that way because it was the easiest way to develop and deploy in that environment
And also don't use modern frameworks like React or Vue, or don't mind sticking all your templates in strings, or in your index.html, and shipping 100kb of template compiler to to user, or write render functions directly ala mithril.
my team (in a large enterprise) uses js for scripts using a shebang interpreter declaration, eg
```
#!/use/bin/env node
console.log("hello cli")
```
While it does depend on node, and there are arguably better crossplatform languages for this purpose, it is a zero-tool chain use case that is very convenient for us.
"Nobody" here means few, or more loosely, much fewer teams than before, not "literally 0 people/teams".
And the group mentioned is (I deduce) not generally individual devs, enterprise devs building some internal thing, and so on but teams in companies doing public-facing SaaS, teams in startups, companies like Amazon/Google/Facebook/Apple all the way to AirBnB etc, and so on.
Yes, exactly. The larger the team, the more likely someone is a front end expert and wants to use latest cool framework, which will by its nature require a build step. Even for something simpler, you'll probably want it for cache busting, minimization, etc.
At the rate the Typescript is releasing, that'd be a support nightmare. Perhaps a better solution is for TC39 to propose optional types. It could be modeled on Typescript for sure, but it would still be backward compatible.
Javascript of today borrows liberally from coffeescript of yesterday, so it would make sense for javascript of tomorrow to borrow liberally from typescript of today.
But then if that's an option, I think Typescript will be the last language I migrate to, because Typescript development culture, tending as it does towards overcomplicated solutions to simple problems, is unpalatable to me.
I'm drawn to the idea of using Rust over WASM as a frontend language, and I think I'd rather choose that approach to develop any browser UI where type safety is critical, provided there is no discernable difference in performance (when compared to TS over WASM).
Yes, it's probably a better idea to improve WASM than add a proprietary format (TS is by Microsoft) to the open browsers. Google tried to do the same thing with Dart and it was decried about a decade ago, so now they use it for Flutter.
I think it will be great once support is broad enough.
It might, ironically, increase the current fashion for framework churn, but at least there will be no single language for developers to derride.
In fact, I wonder how ECMAScript will fare in a post WASM world... I suspect it would still thrive tbh.
Or perhaps people will take to other flexible, expressive languages for UI development. Like Python's niche in computer graphics, or Lua in games and AI research.
I can still see myself using JS in that future.
But not for everything.
You client is politely sending items your peers are requesting, to try to find peers for them in your peer network, without having to flood everyone with irrelevant peer lists.
And this site (which i guess is just a couple lines of python collecting the data) is not bothering to distinguish any of the finer details.
Ah, this makes sense because the first seen and last seen columns are the same for all the stuff I didn't download, but for the one thing I noticed that I do actually recognize there's a gap between first and last seen.
Of course I imagine if two peers were looking for the same thing a few hours a part this wouldn't work to identify stuff either.
EDIT: Is there any way to stop it from doing this? I don't want law enforcement to mistakenly use this as evidence that I actually downloaded anything.
