Por que, no los dos?

Honestly, if you’re having trouble finding stuff for vanilla JS, I’d recommend looking at jQuery. Not that you should USE jQuery, necessarily, but the library is basically a giant wrapper around all the native JS APIs, so the approach to building stuff is essentially the same: it all focuses on tracking and manipulation of DOM elements.

I do vanilla JS (actually TypeScript) dev at work, daily, and that was my big takeaway from spearheding our team’s migration from jQuery to vanilla TypeScript: I honestly don’t know what benefit jQuery provides, over vanilla, because all the most-common jQuery APIs that we were using have a 1:1 native equivalent.

We do also use 2 third-party libraries alongside vanilla, so I’l mention those: require.js and rx.js. Require you probably don’t need, with modern JS having bundling and module support built-in but we still use it for legacy reasons. But rx.js is a huge recommend, for me. Reactive programming is the IDEAL way to build GUIs, in my opinion.

My big reason would be “it hurts readability”. That is, when writing code, readibility for others who aren’t familiar with it (including future me) is my top-priority, and that means indentation and alignment are HIGHLY important, and if I spend the time to write code with specific indentation and alignment, to make it readable at a glance, I want to be certain that it’s always going to display exactly that way. Tabs specifically break that guarantee, because they’re subject to editor settings, which means shit like the below example can occur:

I write the following code with an editor that uses a tab size of 4.

myObject.DoSomething(
    someParameter:      "A",
    someOtherParameter: "B",
    value:              "C");

If someone pulls this up in an editor that uses a tab size of 8, they get…

myObject.DoSomething(
    someParameter:          "A",
    someOtherParameter:     "B",
    value:                          "C");

Not really a big deal, in this simple case, but it illustrates the point.

My second reason would be that it makes code more difficult to WRITE, I.E. it’s not that hard to insert spaces when you mean to insert tabs, considering that you’re not LITERALLY using only tabs just only tabs for indentation and alignment. And if you do accidentally have spaces mixed in, you’re not going to be able to tell. The guy on another machine with different editor settings will, though.

I’m aware there are fonts that can make spaces and tabs visible and distinct, but that sounds like a NIGHTMARE to write and read code with. I mentioned above, my top priority is easy readability, and introducing more visual noise to make tabs and spaces distinct can only hurt readability.

Denying that the logo used to have a cornucopia is a thing? Sheesh, TIL.

I agree, RFK should stop telling people to kill themselves by ignoring modern medicine.

Arcane.

Also depends how much presence you have on social media, and how public you are avout your political opinions there.

Sick. I’ve tried a few times in the past to find a frontend for postgres that I liked, and was never able to. Will have to give this a try.

The most straightforward thing to do, on a private LAN, is to make all your own certs, from a custom root cert, and then manually install that cert as “trusted” on each machine. If none of the machines on this network need to accessed from outside the LAN, then you’re golden.

Not banned… at least not that I know of. Just saw the writing on the wall after the API horseshit.

Yeah, just like it was announced for 2023 in that one XBox showcase.

I’ll believe it when I’m playing it.

Part of the reason that “JavaScript sucks” is BECAUSE it doesn’t have alternatives. If you want to build a WebApp that manipulates the DOM, JS has the ONLY API to do it.

For me, “JavaScript sucks” not really because of the language itself, but because there’s such a massive disconnect between what it was designed for (small amount of bells and whistles within a web page), and what the ecosystem uses it for (foundation for entire GUI applications).

If you want to build WebApps, learn JavaScript, then do all your development with TypeScript, and be VERY mindful of the third-party dependencies you pull into your project.

Musk, an avid gamer himself, claimed

Hey, glad to know this source has no credibility.

Because its value was always fictitious.

I’m gonna hazard a guess, just cause I’m curious, that you’re coming from JavaScript.

Regardless, the answer’s basically the same across all similar languages where this question makes sense. That is, languages that are largely, if not completely, object-oriented, where memory is managed for you.

Bottom line, object allocation is VERY expensive. Generally, objects are allocated on a heap, so the allocation process itself, in its most basic form, involves walking some portion of a linked list to find an available heap block, updating a header or other info block to track that the block is now in use, maybe sub-dividing the block to avoid wasting space, any making any updates that might be necessary to nodes of the linked list that we traversed.

THEN, we have to run similar operations later for de-allocation. And if we’re talking about a memory-managed language, well, that means running a garbage collector algorithm, periodically, that needs to somehow inspect blocks that are in use to see if they’re still in use, or can be automatically de-allocated. The most common garbage-collector I know of involves tagging all references within other objects, so that the GC can start at the “root” objects and walk the entire tree of references within references, in order to find any that are orphaned, and identify them as collectable.

My bread and butter is C#, so let’s look at an actual example.

public class MyMutableObject
{
    public required ulong Id { get; set; }

    public required string Name { get; set; }
}

public record MyImmutableObject
{
    public required ulong Id { get; init; }

    public required string Name { get; init; }
}

_immutableInstance = new()
{
    Id      = 1,
    Name    = "First"
};

_mutableInstance = new()
{
    Id      = 1,
    Name    = "First"
};

[Benchmark(Baseline = true)]
public MyMutableObject MutableEdit()
{
    _mutableInstance.Name = "Second";

    return _mutableInstance;
}

[Benchmark]
public MyImmutableObject ImmutableEdit()
    => _immutableInstance with
    {
        Name = "Second"
    };

Even for the most basic edit operation, immutable copying is slower by more than 7 times, and (obviously) allocates more memory, which translates to more cost to be spent on garbage collection later.

Let’s scale it up to a slightly-more realistic immutable data structure.

public class MyMutableParentObject
{
    public required ulong Id { get; set; }

    public required string Name { get; set; }

    public required MyMutableChildObject Child { get; set; }
}

public class MyMutableChildObject
{
    public required ulong Id { get; set; }

    public required string Name { get; set; }

    public required MyMutableGrandchildObject FirstGrandchild { get; set; }
            
    public required MyMutableGrandchildObject SecondGrandchild { get; set; }
            
    public required MyMutableGrandchildObject ThirdGrandchild { get; set; }
}

public class MyMutableGrandchildObject
{
    public required ulong Id { get; set; }

    public required string Name { get; set; }
}

public record MyImmutableParentObject
{
    public required ulong Id { get; set; }

    public required string Name { get; set; }

    public required MyImmutableChildObject Child { get; set; }
}

public record MyImmutableChildObject
{
    public required ulong Id { get; set; }

    public required string Name { get; set; }

    public required MyImmutableGrandchildObject FirstGrandchild { get; set; }
            
    public required MyImmutableGrandchildObject SecondGrandchild { get; set; }
            
    public required MyImmutableGrandchildObject ThirdGrandchild { get; set; }
}

public record MyImmutableGrandchildObject
{
    public required ulong Id { get; set; }

    public required string Name { get; set; }
}

_immutableTree = new()
{
    Id      = 1,
    Name    = "Parent",
    Child   = new()
    {
        Id                  = 2,
        Name                = "Child",
        FirstGrandchild     = new()
        {
            Id      = 3,
            Name    = "First Grandchild"
        },
        SecondGrandchild    = new()
        {
            Id      = 4,
            Name    = "Second Grandchild"
        },
        ThirdGrandchild     = new()
        {
            Id      = 5,
            Name    = "Third Grandchild"
        },
    }
};

_mutableTree = new()
{
    Id      = 1,
    Name    = "Parent",
    Child   = new()
    {
        Id                  = 2,
        Name                = "Child",
        FirstGrandchild     = new()
        {
            Id      = 3,
            Name    = "First Grandchild"
        },
        SecondGrandchild    = new()
        {
            Id      = 4,
            Name    = "Second Grandchild"
        },
        ThirdGrandchild     = new()
        {
            Id      = 5,
            Name    = "Third Grandchild"
        },
    }
};

[Benchmark(Baseline = true)]
public MyMutableParentObject MutableEdit()
{
    _mutableTree.Child.SecondGrandchild.Name = "Second Grandchild Edited";

    return _mutableTree;
}

[Benchmark]
public MyImmutableParentObject ImmutableEdit()
    => _immutableTree with
    {
        Child = _immutableTree.Child with
        {
            SecondGrandchild = _immutableTree.Child.SecondGrandchild with
            {
                Name = "Second Grandchild Edited"
            }
        }
    };

Not only is performance worse, but it drops off exponentially, as you scale out the size of your immutable structures.

Now, all this being said, I myself use the immutable object pattern FREQUENTLY, in both C# and JavaScript. There’s a lot of problems you encounter in business logic that it solves really well, and it’s basically the ideal type of data structure for use in reactive programming, which is extremely effective for building GUIs. In other words, I use immutable objects a ton when I’m building out the business layer of a UI, where data is king. If I were writing code within any of the frameworks I use to BUILD those UIs (.NET, WPF, ReactiveExtensions) you can bet I’d be using immutable objects way more sparingly.

The presentation is different, but the core problem that the FTC is targeting is the same: spending real money to gamble on artificial digital goods.

It has indeed been pushed and advertised by TikTok. Or at least, within TikTok.

A function call of “MyFunction(parameter: GLFW_TRUE)” is more readable than “MyFunction(parameter: 1)”. Not by much, mind you, but if given the choice between these two, one is clearly better. It requires no assumptions about what the reader may or may not already know about the system.It communicates intent without any ambiguity.

If only bankruptcy actually meant consequences for those responsible.

It’s fraud. They publicly claimed, point-blank, to do a certain thing for years, and were instead doing the opposite, in the interest of making more money. The affiliate link thing is only one of several points that they’re suing over. The far more egregious one is that they don’t actually “scour the internet to find you the best coupons” They will actively hide better coupons that they know about, if marketplaces pay them to, and still tell you in the browser “this is the best coupon.”