> these days everything new I see is incredible and everyone is bored with it

Information saturation

The factory must grow.

Faststone is really fantastic

> Why doesn’t someone test the theory and come up with some competition?

ChatGPT Has entered the chat.

It's easier to verb with nouns.

Hopefully your link will be a component, so you only need replace one line anyway.

Then again if your styles are abstracted to a component, your CSS framework is irrelevant!

Why would you use a component for something that's already a built-in HTML element?

I don't know, but a consulting company saddled us with a monstrosity that does exactly this.

Maybe it's some sort of lock-in feature.

One example is if I was using react it would be used to encapsulate a react-router Link and an anchor tag in a component, and use props to differentiate between inbound and outbound links.

Why would you style an anchor element when your browser already has default styles for it?

Because you want it to look different, such as the color being consistent with the rest of your website?

> If the Typescript team got carte blanche to create their own language, it would likely be... C#.

This is sarcasm, right? The creator of TS is the lead architect of C#

I feel like that’s supporting the parent, right?

Not really, because it's not a question of if TS creators got to make their own language.

And C# iterates at a rapid pace, with lots of language features being added, some of which would would not be possible in TS.

C# is in some ways less shackled by the runtime it has to target, while TS compiles away entirely. The CLR can be changed to suit .net/C# needs, and JS is not under their control.

now use that energy to mine bitcoin and you'll be rolling in ~~money~~ decimal places before you know it!

A big ass inductor sucking up all phone batteries from the whole neighbourhood. On it.

Another (even smaller) alternative is `.join`

`const classes = [some, classNames, here, foo ? 'foo' : ''].join(' ');`

A great way to remember: Objects have keys -> foreign keys -> `for .. in`