I think it's important for any comment or post touting the superiority of Vue to also provide insight into the author's experience with and feeings about React. You very rarely hear from devs who were loving React, tried Vue anyway, and came away believers. This leads me to wonder whether it's not so much that Vue is "better," it's more that it operates in paradigms that are intuitive to some individuals and teams in ways that React might not be. I don't see that as a hit against it or anyone but as a very satisfied React, it does make me take every glowing Vue writeup with a grain of salt.
They are pretty similar, though one thing this article lightly touches on is the standalone .vue file, which works absolutely beautifully. JSX feels like a hack to me, and the ability to write HTML, JS, and CSS as such in a single file greatly simplifies everything. You can even use different flavors of each (ES6, Sass, etc) no problem. I would be shocked if this feature doesn't find it's way into react, angular, and others.
To help put this in perspective, how heavily did you use React before switching to Vue? How did you feel about it at the time, before you were aware of Vue?
I used react for one year, for the web, but not react native. I'll be honest: once I got fluent in react, I still didn't enjoy it.
Too much scrolling around, looking up the doc for every simple things, hard to integrate with legacy Python/Ruby/PHP frameworks, etc.
I went from jQuery then Angular 1, and was much less productive in React.
Also, introducing react to a new member in the team has always been dreadful.
All in all, I never benefited from the concurrency part. The performance yes, and the structure for the SPA. But the whole immutable constraint didn't pay off for me in the end, so I felt my stack was overkill.
This is great advice, particularly the part about small, similar components instead of large, customizable ones. This is something I feel like I struggle with in views much more than I ever did working backend, and it's healthy to be reminded regularly.
On the subject of sagas, does anyone have a good solution for dealing with `call` in TypeScript without losing type safety?
This is all true for some languages but I think it it's far from universal. It seems to me that in many of the most frequently used and taught modern languages, the nearest most devs will come to being concerned with GC is an awareness of why object allocation should be minimized. For their purposes, that is a much better use of time than giving any consideration to GC tuning.
When I was trying to learn Rails, what differentiated Michael's book everything else I came across was his eagerness to not just show _what_ to do but also explain _why_ you're doing it. This is always my suggestion for anyone who is trying to get into Rails.
For companies managing the licenses for their employees, this is a great change. It's especially true for those who have a few primary languages but occasionally get contracts or have projects in other languages. For those with staff sizes in flux -- employees coming and going, contractors in and out, interns on board for part of the year -- only being responsible for the number of seats actively in use is extremely helpful, too.
Managing licenses for teams is time-consuming and frustrating. When I worked in the MSP world, convincing our clients (for whom we were essentially the IT department) that they had to buy an extra seat or upgrade everyone license or reminding them that, "No, you upgraded Sally to v5 but the Intern's system has last year's v4 license, and you have to shell out $X00 right now or they can't work" was a _constant_ issue. Creative Cloud and Office 360 made everything better, I expect this to have the same effect for dev teams.
You can do this already though. Right now, my team has a license server URI they type into their editor, and when we're using the software it grabs a license slot from the server. If that employee left the company they just wouldn't use the license anymore and there's no cleanup work.
I remember when the Storm came out. I was doing IT work for small businesses in the area and many of my clients, the Blackberry Faithful, would get their latest phones whenever possible. From the consumer side, it was every bit of the disaster this describes. The keyboard was an unbelievable disaster, it was horribly slow, crashes constantly, but they kept buying them. The Storm 2 was a relief, mostly because its improvements made my job so much easier.
What was always really interesting to me about Blackberry/RIM was how they managed to create some loyal fans who would happily follow their march into the sea. For years, even as iPhone and Android market share grew, there were (and probably still are) some power users who refused to even consider switching. These were exclusively owners or execs at small businesses, mostly companies with in-house Exchange servers that needed Blackberry Enterprise Servers. The BES always added an extra layer of pain for everyone, since we never got good enough with it to be anything more than a hornets' nest. Still, the Blackberry fans couldn't be swayed, called iPhones "toys," and insisted that their products were the magic to their productivity.
I appreciate a human, conversational approach to technical information and applaud you for your blog's tone. If you were writing for a professional news site it might be inappropriate but as a post on your own blog, you're entitled to whatever writing style you want.
This is a bit of the stretch. Philadelphia is a complex city with complex problems and its police department reflects this. It has plenty of problems but it also has a lot of cops who care.
Growing up in Philly, that was not the perception of the kids who got thrown into dumpsters during a police raid on a prom. This is anecdotal, but in one of the hotbeds of police/citizen conflict, I don't think it serves a purpose to try and pull the "there are always good ones" card. Yes, there are, but until the systemic problems are dealt with they aren't the ones having an impact.
This is absolutely a complete and utter tangent but you touched on something I've really been wondering about: Watching a lot of ken burns lately, heard him tell quite a few stories of German regular army officers going out of their way to protect enemy combatants/POWs from being killed/taken to death camps to the extent that there seemed to be quite the little power struggle from among the nazi ranks; naturally (but unfortunately) since it was an American documentary it wasn't the primary focus, but I'd love to hear of any german made documentaries that do justice to the "people" side of things from the non-american point of view. (maybe this is assumptive and rude but I figured a German on HN would be the best person to ask; hope it wasn't too out of place!)
I don't mind the question at all. But I'm not sure there are many German documentaries portraying German soldiers in WW2 in a positive light. There's a strong cultural fear of making Germans in the Third Reich appear too sympathetic, although I think this hinders properly understanding what got us into that situation in the first place (other than the "obvious" answer that Hitler and his nazi troupe mind controlled us and everybody suddenly became evil overnight) and how we can prevent similar things from happening in the future (aside from the "obvious" answer of censorship and knee-jerk overcompensation).
A lot of the stories I'm aware of are hearsay, but it's not exactly easy to get reliable accounts about this kind of thing. One example is that in Eastern Europe in the early stages of WW2 the Wehrmacht soldiers would allegedly often not care much for the orders regarding the jews (they were just regular soldiers after all, often ones that had been soldiers before the nazis came to power) and would initially often be greeted with sympathy because the locals thought they came to kick the Soviets out. But then the Wehrmacht would often soon be followed by the SS who would of course be far less friendly to the civilians.
As far as I can tell, things generally got progressively worse throughout WW2 as the older soldiers died out and were replaced by younger soldiers who had been raised under the nazi rule and were thus far more likely to just follow the orders and believe the ideology.
An extreme example of this is the last ditch attempt at the end of the war where they tried to raise a militia of what were essentially still children to protect the mostly defeated fatherland against the "invaders".
I think it helps to remember events like the Christmas truce in 1914 when thinking about WW2: yes, the nazis were far worse than any of the powers in the Great War before that, but initially a lot of the soldiers were simply German soldiers, not "nazi" soldiers. And even those that would eventually "earn" that label would often do so for far more complex reasons than just being "evil demon soldiers".
For example, the idea of racial supremacy (which was popular in many other places than Germany at that time, btw) coupled with the economic changes caused by the seizure of Jewish properties, horrible as it was, meshed well with the less educated and less well-off segments of the population. If your life is in the gutter, it can be very uplifting to be told you're special because you're part of the master race. Especially if that is combined with a clear enemy (the treacherous Jews sabotaged the wealth you deserve) and what at that moment superficially seemed like a change for the better (look up the opinions of other European leaders about Hitler in the years before WW2 if you find the time -- it's pretty disconcerting).
Basically, Hollywood tropes aside, I doubt that there were as many hardcore nazis as you'd think. There were a lot of war crimes and a lot of crimes against humanity, of course, and the Holocaust is one of the worst things that happened in the last century, but I don't think you need to be a truly evil person to do unspeakable things -- and IMO that's the real lesson here.
As a German I'm anxious about the direction the US (in particular) is heading, not because I worry they could become Hollywood-style "evil" but because it's so easy to end up in a situation where you don't even realise what you're contributing to until sufficient time has passed. I'm certain most people who ended up contributing to the horrors of the Third Reich had no idea what they were doing even if from the perspective of today you'd think it must have been crystal clear to them at the time.
Thank you for such a complete and well written answer.
Your last two paragraphs really touched on the heart of my curiosity, since the aformentioned documentaries I saw did convey what you described about "normal soldiers", their experiences and the changes their society underwent is as you say a critical piece of understanding how to avoid it, one which we're taught very little about (at least in my American education.)
Either they are outnumbered enough to not be able to make a difference, or they're in the majority and thus complicit in those immoral acts because they allow the minority (of "bad" cops) to go by unpunished.
Which one is it? Is there something else at play that's preventing the majority (of "good" cops) from fixing the problem?
I start with the assumption that "All Cops Are Bastards." It may be prejudicial, but it makes me think before I do anything that anyone could mistake for criminal activity.
If this makes the "cops who care" uncomfortable, they should put the blame squarely on the "cops who don't care" not on me.
This sort of assumption is prejudicial, but it's the sort of cynicism that leads to erring on the side of caution and making sure your rights are respected. You can't trust most people, cops are no exception. In that regard, it might be viewed as pragmatic.
I am sorry you're getting downvoted but this is absolutely right. Remember to never talk to the police. This sounds a little sarcastic but I promise you that it is not. Never, ever "help" the police, even if you are not a suspect.
What you describe is doing everything you can in order to try to avoid a situation in which you might be required to flex your rights. How can you describe it as a strategy for "making sure your rights are respected"? It is on its face an attempt to make the question of whether you have rights or not a no-impact detail.
> What you describe is doing everything you can in order to try to avoid a situation in which you might be required to flex your rights.
I like to think of it as maintaining a preemptive strategy. I don't like this, but the world we live in is unfair and full of assholes who don't play by their own rules.
> How can you describe it as a strategy for "making sure your rights are respected"?
A man who faces no wars carries no battle scars.
> It is on its face an attempt to make the question of whether you have rights or not a no-impact detail.
It's a sad day when advice to be pragmatic is downvoted. Sure, I shouldn't have to be extra careful when talking to police officers because they should have a duty to protect innocent citizens. But I only get one life, so I'm going to to, just as I'm going to watch for people running red lights when crossing the street and staying in safe, lit areas when walking home alone at night.
