rschristian

5 ms·

1.
by rschristian 7mo ago
"Zoom in" or "buy a different monitor" is not an appropriate response to people bringing up the plethora of objective & subjective a11y issues on the page. If you really don't care about providing an accessible
2.
by rschristian 11mo ago
Neither of those things are true to my knowledge... I can find absolutely no evidence of Ryan Carniato being involved with Angular Signals (nor did I hear anything whilst they were being developed) and Preact Signals certainly weren't
3.
by rschristian 1y ago
That was part of the joke: https://github.com/rschristian/voldephobia/commit/b5e1356b8e...
4.
by rschristian 1y ago
Ha, was wondering why I started getting a few more stars all of a sudden. For extra context: I created the tool ~9 months prior to the meltdown as one could vaguely mention an individual trolling over NPM deps and absolutely everyone in the
5.
by rschristian 1y ago
I don't think you understand what "template" means here, this has absolutely nothing to do with design or end result on the page. At no point would a designer be involved with templating the DOM. It's in contrast to the
6.
by rschristian 2y ago
Every JSX implementation uses a mix of setting props & attributes, depending on the specific label, as the DOM can be a bit weird with how some things reflect. Generally properties are preferable to attributes, however.
7.
by rschristian 3y ago
That only works if the maintainers of the packages are interested in the cleanup -- the maintainer behind some of the packages mentioned in this thread is very much not. They prefer the bloat to incrementing the major version number.
8.
by rschristian 4y ago
That's an interesting claim. While it's a far-cry from a realistic test (few people are creating 1000 rows), React seems to be less performant across the board: https://krausest.github.io/js-framework-benchmark&#x2
9.
by rschristian 4y ago
> You don't get the React ecosystem though. Well this is an odd thing to say, as there's a whole dedicated compatibility layer. That's not to say it's 100%; relying on specifics of synthetic events, such as bubbling t