Absolutely Rust and JavaScript. Rust would be a far better language if it used S-expressions and didn't try to reinvent a macro syntax. But then it would not be as popular.
In this way Lisp suffers from having no syntax, although it's a slightly different argument. When you can't have flamewars about a language's syntax, fewer articles are written about it. So instead, people will argue about the encoding of the AST - the parentheses.
Similarly, well-designed languages like Clojure, Haskell and Erlang have fewer questions on StackOverflow and older GitHub issues, so there are fewer flamewars about them (although monads are Haskell's saving grace here).
The NPM crowd are quick to ask, "Is this project abandoned?" when it hasn't had any activity for a year. In Clojure country, we dislike using libraries that haven't been stable for at least five years. As Alan Kay put it, Computer Science is very much a pop culture.
The phenomenon needs a good name, though. Perhaps the Moving Target Paradox, since developers are more likely to run after a moving target.
> well-designed languages like Clojure, Haskell and Erlang have fewer questions on StackOverflow and older GitHub issues
Can you share the methodology you used to validate that this explanation is correct, ruling out the orders of magnitude larger and wider audiences which the languages with more questions have?
SQL gave business analysts a way to express relational set algebra. If SQL had launched with an (arguably superior) datalog syntax, I wonder if it would have been as popular. Probably not, so it does feel like a good example. If SQL was composable (i.e. not a concatenated string), it would employ far fewer API gluers.
> Apple has done its best to secure customer privacy... That earns ️<3 from me. Do I think Google would look out for me like that? Hahah, no, I do not think so.
Both Apple and Google are NSA's PRISM partners, Hahah. It's amazing how short some people's memories are.
Has anybody with Aphantasia read 'Moonwalking with Einstein' by Joshua Foer or 'The Memory Book' by Harry Lorayne? I recently started working on improving my memory using mnemonic techniques described in these books. And, let me tell you, they ALL rely on visualization. It's just so shocking to me that some people just won't be able to do this!
Has somebody with aphantasia tried any mnemonic techniques to remember things? Do you have problems recalling events long after they occur (like events from your childhood)? Do you ever daydream?
I'm aphantasic, and I read that book during psychology studies. I actually used the method of loci for a social psychology exam where we got 320 total questions + answers and a random set of those questions would be on the exam. I used my parents farm as the location. It worked surprisingly well for me, considering I couldn't actually 'see' any of it, but rather used my inner spatial sense, combined with alliterations/rhymes for some connections, to form the memory.
I have very vague memories from childhood (and in general). It's all quite abstract, with the spatial sense substituting for real imagery, and perceiving 'silent' voices when recalling conversations. There's no smell, taste or physical sensation. If I remember an embarrassing situation, there is the an emotional component (cringe), but even the emotional component is usually quite weak
Daydreaming: Not in the way that I think people mean when they talk about daydreaming. I'll close my eyes and think sometimes. I usually get bored with that pretty quickly though, since it's just inner monologue/dialogue without any real sonic component
Kinda off-topic but if you use Firefox on your mobile, you can install 'uBlock origin'[0] extension which will block pesky, annoying ads and trackers. Not that helpful with text-only sites but very useful with normal browsing.
I think what they are trying to say is that try everything yourself and see and don't just blindly believe in benchmarks.
And also mentioned on the same page is this :
In the spirit of demonstrating typical performance characteristics, the benchmarks presented in this comparison page are implemented in an apples-to-apples, naive, idiomatic way (i.e. the way you would normally write 99% of your code) and do not employ tricks or advanced optimizations to make one or other framework look artificially better. You are encouraged to contribute a PR if you feel any DbMonster implementation here could be written more idiomatically.
Sure. If you still want to be React-like, that is! But React, Preact are still view libraries right? Mithril is a (reasonably) complete framework. It's sufficiently similar to React that if you know React, you can get productive in Mithril very fast. I guess mithril is for people who want a full framework with no fluff that gets out of the way.
> But React, Preact are still view libraries right?
No, they're component-oriented. View suggests you're doing MVC or similar. You don't need an M & C with React -- you will likely need to add react-router, but react + react-router (or preact + preact-router) is all the 'framework' you need for most apps.
Ok. For that matter, Mithril is also component-oriented and router is included.
And what I meant by react being a view library is that react by itself only handles the UI part and you need to get additional libraries to handle stuff like routing and talking with the server. This stuff is provided by mithril itself.
It seems you're missing the point. React and Mithril both employ virtual DOM, both use components and both allow higher abstractions that provide ways to manage complexities that arise in front-end development. Jquery and HTML don't do that.
I tried both Mithril and React and found Mithril to be simpler than React as it 'gets out of the way'.
I invite you to read this for more detailed comparison :
I had a similar experience. It made me understand how front-end javascript frameworks actually work (in general). The no-fluff approach taken by the framework meant that code was clear and descriptive docs helped (reminds me of Django's docs sometimes). I wish there were more tutorials though.
