I somewhat like the idea of being able to submit issues via email directly. It does cost on spam classification and prevention, though. An account is easily classifiable as an additional confidence metric. E-Mail, not so much, or with significantly more complexity in relating data and ensuring continuity of source.
An account is a very obvious way to build a reputation. If you see a new GitHub account submitting a PR vs someone having contributed for a long time and significant projects in the same technology, you may approach the reviews quite differently. It is, at least, a very useful and simple way to classify authors and patch submitters.
What does SourceHut provide in this aspect? To what degree does it verify incoming emails authenticity, sender source, and continuity of source hoster? To what degree does it relate information by email address? I assume it does not.
Supporting soft subs is a complex topic though. Three formats, font embedding, positioning and animations. It's a ton of effort, and anything less than "full featureset support" will mean they don't render how you design them in your full-set editor and local media play. And there will be differences and bugs, at least for a while. I suspect font rendering with various fonts in a media render context will have it's own set of issues.
I also think it'd be nice, but I can totally see how it may not make sense technically (complexity with its burdens vs need) or economically.
Browsers are already absurdly complex though so… maybe? :P
RE: phabricator…I don’t know what that service is or is for, so I can’t comment if there’s any proof therein.
The how to submit a patch section documents that that's where they accept patches. And they do their reviews and change iterations there. By necessity, that also means hosting/having the repos.
That's confusing to me.
They only accept patches on Phabricator, have the sources there, but suggest using GitHub, but afterwards Phabricator to submit the changes?
I can only imagine it's to lower barrier to entry because GitHub is more well known. But this just seems like a confusing mess to me, without clear wording of intentions and separation of concerns [in their docs, not your post or comment here].
These changes will apply to operations like cloning repositories over HTTPS, anonymously interacting with our REST APIs, and downloading files from raw.githubusercontent.com.
Lenard Flören, a Germany-based art director at an advertising agency, said he quickly realized that trying to create his dream fitness app with one lengthy prompt would lead to a plethora of bugs that “neither ChatGPT nor my clueless self had any chance of solving.”
If everyone can create programs, and everyone fails, maybe it'll bring increased appreciation to development and good development and products? One could hope. I guess the worst offenders won't even try themselves either way. The services are not that accessible.
You tell the AI the "vibe" of what you want the result to have, and it does that - but of course it's not necessarily that simple. You may end up doing prompt engineering, multiple iterations, trial and error, etc
When we tried a product at my workplace generating a web app prototype in react seemed viable and reasonable, possibly good for prototyping and demonstrating. We also tried a Blazor app, and it utterly failed. I suspect because of less training on it and much more complex mixture of technologies.
At my work we explored a low-code platform. It was not low on code at all. Beyond the simplest demos you had to code everything in javascript, but in a convoluted, intransparend, undocumented environment with a horrendous editing UI. Of course their marketing was something different than that.
That was not the early days of low-code mind you. It was rather recently; maybe three or four years ago.
There's a lot more variance in the specifics, but I think for an overview like this it's certainly missing dual-licensing and "business-open" licenses like "readable but limited now, but free software two years from now".
But I guess with the specific target audience of this post the reduction for simplicity is a good thing.
Performance optimization is hard because it’s fundamentally a brute-force task, and there’s nothing you can do about it.
I think that only takes effect after a certain degree of best practices, knowable practices and effects, and after educated guesses and theories with testing. That's a lot before you reach brute force territory. At least in typical and higher-level programming language development.
Do you want feedback on your website too? I have a big monitor. It's too big, making use of the entire screen width and height, and seemingly scaling to fill proportionally instead of reasonably. I would like to be able to grasp the menu in one glance, not read word for word. I assume the content is a generated presentation. For me, that's unfit for a landing webpage too. Too big.
Seems interesting. But I don't have a use case, no need to make presentations regularly (and without existing templates). The signup is a hindrance, and having to learn a new syntax is too.
No docs regarding syntax or syntax overview/intro either, making it hard to assess. Link to "based on Tufle CSS" is broken. As well as hidden far down but not at the end.
I had to click a few pages into their site for this
It's on the landing page in the "Extensible and Open" section too.
While Theia incorporates certain components from Visual Studio Code, such as the Monaco editor, it is independently developed with a unique, modular architecture, Theia is not a fork of VS Code.
I just tried using it with local Ollama AI - looks like the current version 1.60 has a regression breaking exactly that. And the 1.61 milestone with the fix is overdue. So, presumably the update with the fix should be delivered soon?
Kissaki @ Kissaki @programming.dev Posts 27Comments 441Joined 2 yr. ago
I somewhat like the idea of being able to submit issues via email directly. It does cost on spam classification and prevention, though. An account is easily classifiable as an additional confidence metric. E-Mail, not so much, or with significantly more complexity in relating data and ensuring continuity of source.
An account is a very obvious way to build a reputation. If you see a new GitHub account submitting a PR vs someone having contributed for a long time and significant projects in the same technology, you may approach the reviews quite differently. It is, at least, a very useful and simple way to classify authors and patch submitters.
What does SourceHut provide in this aspect? To what degree does it verify incoming emails authenticity, sender source, and continuity of source hoster? To what degree does it relate information by email address? I assume it does not.