"Just marketing" in science journalism and publications is basically at the root of the anti-intellectualism movement right now (other than the standard hyper-fundamentalist Christians that need to convince people that science in general is all fraud), everyone sees all these wild claims and conclusions made by "science journalists" with zero scientific training and literal university PR departments that are trivially disproved in the layman's mind simply by the fact that they don't happen, and they lose faith not in the journalists who have no idea what they are writing about, but in science itself
I used to love Popular Science magazine in middle school, but by high school I had noticed how much it's claims were hyperbole and outright nonsense. I can't fathom how or why, but most people blame the scientists for it.
I've noticed only slightly larger pool of decent candidates when recruiting, but nothing crazy.
The number of unsolicited messages from recruiters with serious offers I receive haven't changed much either.
The only serious change I see is in the number of borderline spam recruiter messages coming to the linkedin profile I haven't updated in almost a decade.
The Iran "retaliatory" attack was clearly not a serious effort, they mostly used old cheap rockets and drones. It was more to save face and they got a lot of information on Israel's defence systems out of it. And not to mention it cost the Israelis over a 1 billion dollars to thwart while Iran spend a few million.
I'm confused by the labelling, normally "super" implies speed but here the interaction gets slower while the pixels increase. Maybe Max is a better descriptor?
Its not even that. Look at the job description for any managerial position in programming and they almost never ask for programming experience.
Imagine two cvs. One has 10 years of experience programming and 2 "managing" a team of software devs. The other 10 years of experience "managing" and knows nothing about programming. Guess who they would hire?
This is because the system is top down. More often than not top directors are old and understand nothing about technology. So they see engineers as threatening and scary and they prefer to hire people they "understand".
Most people managing a software developer team can't read code so everything eventually becomes super political because the manager is guided by impressions and things like the name of the PR ans such.
Its like hiring a blind man to supervise a group of painters. Then managers feel super insecure because they don't understand things very well even if they try with metaphors. Insecure managers tend to be very aggressive and toxic
Totally agree. I've been developing with React for a couple years and before that I was an Android developer for about a decade. React is such a breeze to use compared to the complexity that goes into developing with other frontend frameworks.
Okay, I’ll volunteer. Hooks solve a real problem in a really unidiomatic way that makes real code hard to understand. They put invisible function boundaries around return values and create state machines inside the body of functions which don’t correspond to the actual function body.
I could say the same thing about Solid and its reactivity, and I have. But at least with Solid you know where the magic begins: an opening JSX tag. With hooks, it’s everwhere and you can’t know where magic and non-magic share a space because it’s externalized to linters which have limited capabilities to cross module boundaries.
I don’t like any of this magic but I’ll take “it happens predictably at an angle bracket with a well defined next character” any day.
The magic used by react is very limited, one just really has to look a certain way for a few function calls, as if they were declarations and not abuse it. It’s also not particularly hard to grok what’s behind the “magic” if someone is that inclined - there are frameworks with orders of magnitude more of that.
Sure, solid is better in that respect, but react couldn’t have done any other way if it wants to work without a compile-phase.
Both of them have the same magic, just different variations of it. They both create artificial thunks around something, with special memoizations you haven’t defined right outside of them. React does it at the outside of a component, regardless of how the component is defined. Solid does it at the outside of the outermost angle braces of the returned JSX expression. Both are “spooky action” as the saying goes. Both are “at a distance”, but Solid can much more easily be reasoned about.
And I have no idea why people (including React team members) keep saying React doesn’t have a compiler. That’s literally the only thing that makes it not plain JS.
Edit: and the compiler isn’t as specialized as Solid’s dom-expressions, but it’s definitely not just a DSL over an otherwise equivalent function call. There are special cases for specific props, and they have similar special case rules with Solid. And that special casing has only been more true over time, some people used to write React.createElement directly, but I think approximately no one writes the new jsx(…) directly because it’s specifically intended to be a compile target.
I've used react daily since the early days. I like hooks but I don't really know what the _real_ problem was that they solved. Getting rid of class components?
It’s quite a big change, depending on how many routes are in play. Migrating to App Router is non-trivial.
Thankfully, the pages directory model is still just fine, so there’s no immense pressure for existing apps to migrate, and it can be done somewhat incrementally.
