Had the opposite experience. It seems intuitive and a step forward making the API clearer. It also eliminates a bunch of potential footguns at the same time.
Both of those are coupled to React/JSX unless I'm mistaken.
The reason we've chosen DaisyUI (which seems similar to Hyper) is that its framework independent and just uses CSS (no JS) as our team uses Svelte/SvelteKit.
In my experience this gives you more flexibility while still giving you a lot of the common UI boilerplate you need to scaffold apps quickly.
Being able to use a single component library across UI frameworks is a huge advantage.
If you're implementing a reasonably complex ui, the insane edge-cases that component-libraries must manage cannot be accomplished with CSS alone. Accessibility, Keyboard-Navigation, spec-conformance... The feature summaries from react-aria [1] illustrate this.
For example, did you know that it's not trivial to have a button inside an interactive list item, because none of the default html-interactive components can be nested?
As another example, DaisyUI recommends relying on the <dialog> element for a simple modal, which, as I recall, has flawed accessibility and excludes 7% of browsers.
eBay is too international, Craigslist is USA only. FB marketplace is probably a local focused, but for each country. I'm just guessing here, I don't have the data to back this up.
Care to expand on this? Component props seem quite straightforward where I stand and Typescript support has improved drastically over the preceding months
I can't tell if you're just trolling or you're trying to make a point that Bitcoin actually uses no energy which, unless you do some crazy mental gymnastics, is quite a bizarre perspective to hold.
And please explain how my question is ignorant but the stance you're taking isn't?
if you want to see it that way, sure, but i'd say it's stretching. airplanes convert energy into miles travelled. bitcoin converts energy into security of an asset. if nobody needs to travel or nobody needs the security - no energy is spent.
Personally I have a problem with how much energy is needed in the conversion in both cases, but my point is that both formulations are sophistically working around the fact that bitcoin and air travel both consume a lot of energy.
But that’s where the analogy breaks, because with airplanes it’s indeed a backward way of describing it, but with bitcoin it’s what actually happens. Airplanes are means of travel, they can be more or less energy efficient. Bitcoin is a mean of achieving security via energy expenditure and energy efficiency doesn’t apply here. If you made a Bitcoin miner that is two times more efficient - it wouldn’t lead to reduction in energy use, it would lead to increase in difficulty requirement in bitcoin because the attacker can use that energy efficient miner too.
You may not like how much energy is spent on maintaining security, but it’s not bitcoin that necessitates it, it’s the market.
Bitcoin opened a Pandora’s box by showing the world how it can be done and now if people say they want an attacker to take 1gigawatt to overtake the network then that’s what will be spent to protect against such attack. With or without bitcoin.
Personally I do not see how it is meaningful to draw a distinction between bitcoin and its market. If you prefer I can reformulate my poin to "the bitcoin current _ecosystem_ consume is overly inefficient" but beyond that I find problematic that
> If you made a Bitcoin miner that is two times more efficient - it wouldn’t lead to reduction in energy use, it would lead to increase in difficulty requirement
this is not considered problematic for something meant to replace current army-based currency. It points toward a direction where the economy becomes a zero-sum game.
Maybe I can reformulate my position then, so that it’s clearer: people have demand for certain kind of security of their financial assets - security that guarantees any attacker would have to spend some amount of energy to perform a successful attack. Whether bitcoin exists or not - that demand will be fulfilled and that amount of energy will be spent.
Usual army-based money depends weakly on the cost of energy, in general the economic structure of our society is ultimately based on trust of others and of the system.
Security of assets is understood to be best effort and preventive measures are well known to be unreliable (often replaced by inefficient punitive measures).
Bitcoin strives to build a trustless economy and thus its operation has far greater costs (fraud prevention with usual money generally costs proportionally with fraud attempts, while bitcoin is constantly tuned to 100% prevention).
In a more fair comparison we should compare the cost of all the world police + law enforcement + armies to the cost of mining energy + mining hardware and even given conservative estimates of corruption it isn't clear which side would be better under the total cost metric.
We could stop here and consider bitcoin an (almost) infallible trustless economy based on burning commodities compared to our usual fallible economy based on trust and force.
Personally I fell that this comparison suggest that bitcoin _should_ remain like it is today, relatively small with little influence on the world as a whole but readily available to who might need its peculiar service.
Some thoughts for how I approach structuring React applications. I'd love to hear any feedback/suggestions and hear how everyone else chooses to structure their applications!
Very cool concepts and makes me want to check out the project again.
That said it sounds like you're basically concluding "don't test components" in your testing section, that can't be the conclusion right? I'm still confused how you would approach testing a "view()" wrapper component since you now can't inject mocks as props for your store but instead use direct imports.
