The biggest downside of knockout is that it parses the template from the dom, and the template is rendered as dom until first execution. Then that it eval it's bindings. I suppose tko should help with those issues but seems kinda dead.
Knockout reactivity primitives are also a lot more naive then modern signals implementations.
Not sure how to react. This is the second time in a month that someone thinks I used AI to write an HN post.
All I can say is that I didn't, and thank you for implying that it was so well written that it could only have been authored by a machine that has all of humanity's cultural output to hand.
I like it but I always miss features or defaults like:
- internal network only with edge nodes (i.e tail scale out the box, + some edge nodes)
- option to deploy on multiple servers to scale with super simple non k8s approach.
Like 10 nodes behind tailscale/wireguard in a private network, with only 2 nodes where you have a port open on 80/443, those are exposed to the public network. The rest of the nodes are all private like db, redis, etc etc.
Check out https://github.com/psviderski/uncloud I'm building. Multi-machine deployments and a private WireGuard network spanning locations (even behind a NAT) are its core capabilities.
I think a feature like this sees best use in short lived programs (where startup time is a disproportionate percentage of total run time) and programs where really fast startup is essential. There are plenty of places where I could imagine taking advantage of this in my code at work immediately, but I share your concern about unpredictability when libraries we use are also making use of it. It wouldn't be fun to have to dive into dependencies to see what needs to be touched to trigger lazy imports at the most convenient time. Unless I am misunderstanding and a normal import of a module means that all of its lazy imports also become non-lazy?
I mean everything has dependencies (some of the solutions elsewhere require Chrome and other common solutions require the JVM). At least Pandoc is GPL.
There are multiple ways to "depend", so if pandoc executes some external tool all of the work then might as well use that external tool directly. You will get more control over how the conversion happens, know for what search for when in trouble etc.
Sure, I don't mean that anyone would look at the Latex in between. I'm just saying that if tool x directly calls tool y to do the job then might as well use tool y directly.
Since hammers and nails are a common tool-workpiece example…consider the nail gun.
Theoretically you can drive nails with a 22 caliber blank cartridge without making the “call” through a nail gun. But you won’t finish laying shingles as quickly and easily…
Or to put it another way, there’s a reason assemblers are almost always better than machine code and compilers are almost always better than assemblers for the ends people care about.
I mean why use Latex at all when you could write your own typesetting language? Maybe because you are not a knuth.
You're confusing wrappers with alternatives. The comparison is more like if somebody published a script called html-to-pdf.sh which directly calls, e.g, chrome, would you want to use this script or use chrome directly? I would prefer the latter because (1) I would know what actually does the conversion, (2) I would know what to search for on the web should I need to tweak the output. This knowledge gives me more power as I know the actual converter. The wrapper script perhaps only helps with what the command line should be.
reply