Someone here gets the 20/hour for STEM volunteer work with kids then donates the money to a charity which Formidable also doubles as a part of another program. Would that address the issue for you or is the idea of getting paid for fun stuff just ruin the fun no matter what on principle?
I may differ from others, but anything that I do as volunteer work needs to be unpaid. Putting money in the equation means that I'm no longer doing X work for Y people, but instead doing X work for Z dollars.
Putting money in the work makes it transactional, and that turns me off to "paid volunteer work". At that point, it's really just another label for "optional job". Volunteer work is donating your time or effort, so putting the "paid" label on it is misleading in my eyes.
I also already donate to charity so I don't see a need to get paid to donate more money, which others may have an incentive to do. This is a point to consider.
Mac and Swift/Obj-C fanboys will always rail against anything that fails their purity tests. Electron certainly has some issues they need to work out, but Electron criticism doesn't need to dominate this comments section to the rate that it is.
Ehhh, for me personally, I have no working mac, but use iOS - it's mostly just things like having to completely reorient myself around the UX, find equivalents for all of my prior things or repurchase/migrate, stuff like that. Minor stuff but you know -- people hate tiny annoying shit.
Ultimately it's just that I'm very attuned to my phone, so I want to delay and minimize hassle with it as much as possible. The same reasoning isn't always true of every device I own (I run Linux, hack things, I'm quite used to playing with my devices), but I think this is fairly reasonable. I don't really blame anyone who uses Android and feels the exact same way (by all means, I'm sure it's a perfectly reasonable alternative since the Android 2.0 days of yore, when I first went to iOS).
I might pick up a refurb Nexus as a work/burner phone for traveling though.
Did I mention I don't want to have to re-purchase FFVII again?
My problem with Google products is that (it seems) every single product released is designed to collect data in a different manner. It almost as if they only release products so they can collect new data. And you can tell exactly how badly they want your information by just how attractive they make the product offering. Gmail for example.
I always see these types of comments, and it seems like they are either talking from pure bias or outdated experiences.
Flagship android phones are close to flawless not only in hardware but in the integration with Google services, which are far beyond anything Apple has the ability to provide. As a Samsung S7Edge owner I simply cannot relate.
I dislike the comparison to IE6 because it's easily shot down with the many ways in which the situation is different. But Safari absolutely is falling behind other browsers in API support and could well end up holding the web back. Particularly on mobile, given that iPhone users are not able to install a different browser runtime.
Being pretty disingenuous to compare IE6 with WebKit in terms of implemented features. Many websites had to be specifically coded for IE as it wouldn't render correctly many basic parts of HTML/CSS. WebKit is deficient mainly in the newer, less popular features.
Also Microsoft would unilaterally add proprietary features and tie their software to it e.g. Outlook/Sharepoint which then encouraged corporations to do the same as well. Apple actively participates in standards organisations eg. one for Web Components:
Many websites had to be specifically coded for IE as it wouldn't render correctly many basic parts of HTML/CSS.
Was IE6 demonstrably less compliant than other contemporary browsers? I recall - similarly - sites that were "Best viewed in Netscape Navigator at foo x bar resolution."
Also Microsoft would unilaterally add proprietary features
IIRC, IE6 added XmlHttpRequest, which - though there were other workarounds to accomplish the same thing - enabled AJAX.
Do not other browsers even today add their own features (e.g. browser-prefixed CSS properties) prior to standardization?
...and tie their software to it e.g. Outlook/Sharepoint
Initially well, but soon very poorly, because IE6 remained a contemporary browser for an unusually long time.
Distilled down to the core, the fundamental problem with IE6 was the five year chasm where development was completely stalled. When the version was finally bumped in 2006, so much time had elapsed that the solution was unsatisfying for everyone: changes so major that compatibility was problematic, but still insufficient to bring it up to speed with its competitors.
Safari may not be implementing bleeding-edge features at the same rate, but at least the engine is being continually developed and improved.
> But Safari absolutely is falling behind other browsers in
> API support and could well end up holding the web back
I am afraid that hastily releasing half-baked APIs and moving on to the new shiny things will do web more harm in the long run.
IMHO web is suffering a huge identity crisis right now.
IMHO the problem is their yearly release cycle. Right now the feature might be too incomplete to include, which is fair. But in a few months it would be, but its still 10 months at minimum before Safari adds support for it.
That would be a very distant possibility. Chrome is indeed being used by a lot of Apple users however, the loyalty and fan base of any and all Apple products is too big and, pardon me, egoistic. They would not let it go that easy
Safari doesn't lag that far behind WebKit and iOS/OSX both have very frequent update cycles. And has WebKit really been that bad at adopting internet standards ?
Sadly yes. While it's not really as horrible as many people (myself included) have said, the problem is their release cycle, and iOS's lock in.
One a year means that it will probably be 2 years before any new features are "stable". (for example IndexedDB support came out and it was so buggy that it was unusable, it wasn't until ios8 that it was even somewhat usable, and it still has several game-breaking bugs)
So you run into problems like this where in 6 months every other major browser will have stable shadow DOM support, and safari will still be at least 6 months away from its first (possibly buggy) release, meaning there could be another 12 month wait after that to get a good implementation. And while any other platform can install an alternative iOS users are stuck with safari, and there is literally no way around it.
You could also argue that Safari on desktop is more likely to be updated as well since it is generally accepted that Mac OS X has a higher adoption rate of new versions since:
1. enterprise use of Mac OS X is pretty small, and its generally enterprises that are slow to upgrade OS/browser, etc (albeit for generally valid reasons)
2. OS X upgrades have been free for some time now.
Based on this post from a few months ago (which was on HN at the time), I wouldn't call Safari a holdout, though I don't know what's happened since then.
I think there are times for both but I agree with you. I'm pretty much only interested in Multi paradigm languages at this point and after much consternation I'm pretty stoked about the es6 moves and hope JS continues to support all the ways to program things.
Immutability and lazy eval are both really well implemented with OOP interfaces even though I consider both functional concepts.
It's almost as if you have project masterminded by "idea guys" without any regard for its technical, or even physical feasibility, designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator to attract people with little experience in investing, it is likely to end up being either a scam or a total failure.
Which frankly is the same thing that many Silicon Valley startups do, except the investors have far more experience, yet still put money in.
Frankly investing is a risk, and if you aren't willing to take that risk then you shouldn't do it. Not every Silicon Valley startup is a success, not every Kickstarter is a success.
It's almost as if Kickstarter's business model optimizes for "idea guys." If a particular set of economic incentives creates a particular kind of parasite, the problem is the ecology of the niche, not the parasite. You can't make con-artists cease to exist; you have to change the game so it's not one con-artists want to play.
I use atom as an editor for markdown. But I don't know about if they're using React in it or not. I don't follow the dev that closely. I am still rather sure you can develop plugins in react, which is fine.
My point being that require('react'); wasn't the best fit for their editor window (which doesn't need events to be intercepted, etc), but the idea behind virtual dom diffing and how they updated their window left an impact. The concepts behind react got them thinking in a new way, which is ultimately much more important than their dependency on a 0.x.y release library.
If anything, the design of react was a stepping stone to where they've ended up now. It wasn't "bad", so much as unoptimized for their specific task. For me I'm glad it can intercept events (usually), since it simplifies cross browser compatibility. Atom is essentially one browser version, so it doesn't need that overhead.
(I work at Formidable)