athanagor2

5 ms·

1.
by athanagor2 2mo ago
How did you conduct this rewrite? Did you hand the AI some specs, some tests, the existing code? I feel like AI has dramatically changed how complete rewrites can be considered, especially for long-lived, legacy projects.
2.
by athanagor2 10mo ago
> You’d realise how bad this is when I tell you the benchmarks for the native WhatsApp for comparison. I tested the old/native WhatsApp, and it uses just 190MB most of the time, dropping to less than 100MB when it’s completely idle.
3.
by athanagor2 11mo ago
> In the very worst case they used next.js to write a second backend that sat between my existing Django backend (which had been done earlier) and the front end. That's hilarious. Casey Muratori truly is right when he says to "
4.
by athanagor2 11mo ago
> React and React-like frameworks (includes Vue and Svelte I believe) Putting React with those two is a wild take. > 99% percent of websites would work a lot better with SSR and a few lines of JavaScript here and there and there is
5.
by athanagor2 1y ago
Honest question: I don't understand how forbidding inline scripts and style improves security. Also it would be a serious inconvenience to the way we distribute some of our software right now lol
6.
by athanagor2 1y ago
The fact it could be compiled in WASM is a good thing, given the Chrome team was considering removing libxml and XSLT support a few years back. The reasons cited were mostly about security (and share of users). It's another proof that
7.
by athanagor2 2y ago
This reminds me of the time I did a fait accompli. Due to changes in the input data, a simulator was crashing completely and very early in the simulation, making it unusable. We had to solve this quickly. The underlying module that was cras
8.
by athanagor2 2y ago
The other things I wrote about are also non-issues (in practice). They are just ignorant. I could also write about the result of `parseInt(0.0000005)`, which could be more of a real problem.
9.
by athanagor2 2y ago
> You can dismiss their objections as childish, but people are gonna write in the language they want to (or are paid to) write in. If there's a large body of existing python code they'd have to rewrite in JavaScript, or use som
10.
by athanagor2 2y ago
> The only reason to do something like this is if you only know Python and refuse to use anything else. The ignorance and prejudice of most developers are staggering. They simply think "Javascript is shit", and all their argume
11.
by athanagor2 2y ago
As far as I know there's no simple and performant way to have the DOM be a function of the state with existing standards
12.
by athanagor2 2y ago
Yeah I thought of this too. Wrapping this with Tauri should not be too hard, and quite space-efficient
13.
by athanagor2 2y ago
Possibly a result of labor division? The more a business grows the more there are parasitic positions opening (see Parkison's law). Thus the selection of people whose work matches the intellectual mediocrity of their superiors (graphic
14.
by athanagor2 3y ago
Interesting take. One could argue that by adding async functions on top of classic and generator ones we now have three different colors for the functions instead of just tw.
15.
by athanagor2 3y ago
Handling user inputs. Each time the generator yields you wait for a user input, and when you receive it you next() the generator with the input. It’s less verbose than using a bunch of methods, or the closest alternative I saw which is a sw
16.
by athanagor2 3y ago
Vue 3 follows a similar approach to Vue 2 (reactivity on objects, translates automatically to DOM updates). Although there have been some syntactic changes (such as the composition API). Job-wise React is probably the better option, in term
17.
by athanagor2 3y ago
> Mathematics, especially, seems to have a strong tacit component. It’s quantifiers, and bound and free variables.
18.
by athanagor2 3y ago
The toolchain complexity problem was already present with Vue 2 (and anyway it was usable as a dependency pulled into a classic web page). It definitely could be better, and it seems to be on the way of being improved. I feel like a lot of
19.
by athanagor2 3y ago
Isn’t this inevitable if the user allocates each time a struct/array is created, rather than allocating upfront?
20.
by athanagor2 3y ago
This is exactly what Justine Tunney's redbean does.
21.
by athanagor2 3y ago
I used generators in the way you described in your last paragraph. And I added the possibility to "replay" the generators with the previous inputs except the last one. It provides a cheap way to have a kind of multi-step input pro
22.
by athanagor2 3y ago
What's the point of the empty string literal "" ?
23.
by athanagor2 4y ago
But is it true that "clean code" makes the adaptation to changing requirements easier? I saw a few testimonies saying otherwise.
24.
by athanagor2 4y ago
The performance difference is truly savage. But I think there is a reason for the existence of "clean code" practices: it makes devs easier to replace. Plus it may create a market to try to optimize intrinsically slow programs!
25.
Performance-Aware Programming Series Announcement(youtube.com)
3 points by athanagor2 4y ago|0 comments
26.
by athanagor2 4y ago
I used a very similar pattern in a web app, in which the user creates objects by clicking in different places. There is a state built by each click, and it is convenient to just go back one or several steps behind sometimes. So you have som