The branding is incredibly confusing, but: Hotwire (https://hotwired.dev/) is a set of ideas about how to build dynamic web UI (“HTML over the wire”), and the Turbo, Stimulus and Native frameworks are complementary implementations of those ideas in JavaScript and native mobile code. You can use all, some or none of them to build a Hotwire-style app.
The three frameworks originated in Rails apps, so they have good Rails integrations, but there’s nothing Rails-specific about them and you can use them in any environment where HTML is sent from server to client, even a static web site.
If I call some place I've never heard of before, know nothing about, my first interaction with them on the phone shouldn't result in "Oh my god, these people seem like scammy used car salespeople!"
If your assertion is true, that it's a joke, it's going to backfire. That's because that call is the equivalent of what's happening here. I called, and the person on the other end ... thinking it a joke, funny, did their best to convince me that they're scam artists.
That's what's happened here. I know nothing about this website, and this was my first impression. And no... my initial reaction isn't "Hmm. This website seems scammy and lame. Maybe I should spend my time investigating to determine if I'm right or wrong!". If I did that, I'd spend my entire life looking at scammy websites... I have better things to do.
Like I said, it's a shame to see this on what seems to be reputable website. But I literally stopped reading, and moved on to other things when I saw it. The website owner should take that into account.
(And indeed, I may be some small ratio, 2% of users, but it could be higher. It could be a lot higher. Or it could obviously be 0.2%. But that's a bold move, putting a big "I'm a scam artist!" sign on a website, first engagement is going to bite.)
Heck... if I was Google, any page with "One * trick" on it would be downranked.
TL;DR don't put a massive sign on your website that reads "I'm a scam artist, clickbait website!"
It pattern-matched "scam" so you classified it as "scam" and absolved yourself of doing any further thinking.
If something pattern-matches "legit" are you equally blase about sticking with your snap judgment and absolving yourself of doing any further thinking?
Snap judgement? I cite my phone call scenario, which this parallels.
Should I.. what? Call back and see if they laugh and say "Oh no, we're not really used car salespeople, what was a just a good joke!". Why would I, or anyone do that? Yet this is apparently a "snap judgement" and "not thinking" to you?
So why would I spend time trying to determine if the people which purposefully acted as scam artists and clickbait boneheads on websites, are actually playing a joke? What's in it for me? As I said, I'd have to do this for every single clickbait website.
I don't read clickbait websites, and I'm not going to take the time to see if it was all a big jolly joke.
It hardly requires a huge amount of investigation to see that's not a scam link. It literally has the blog authors name attached to it, along with a post date and a "read the full story"link that has the same web address as the blog. It's just a few seconds work to see it's legit.
You're not fully getting it. I said with clarity that I know it's pointing back to his website. But any website with a click-bait title of 'One small trick" or some such, is a scammy, clickbaitish site.
Any negative aspect of media from the past can, and often will, be transformed into a positive trait in future media.
People embrace vinyl records in an age of digital music. They take photos with analog cameras even though everyone has a phone in their pocket. Musicians use the harsh artifacts of MP3 compression as creative effects in their music. The examples are countless, and they all emerge precisely when the media that once produced these unwanted artifacts becomes obsolete.
If you haven't noticed this shift, I suggest you learn to recognize it quickly. Otherwise, you might miss out on great content because it doesn't make it past your mental spam filter.
And if you don't want to adapt, that's fine too—just don't tell others how to manage their websites.
Nothing you cited has anything to do with emulating scam artists and clickbait boneheads, and trying to claim acting like a clickbait artist is all the rage, is invalid.
However, your commandments to not provide my opinion, predicated upon your opinion, is the gold standard in ridiculousness.
Dang, substitute Lisp for Prolog and this describes me. Seriously though - Prolog is an awesome tool to have in your toolbox. I've implemented Prolog-like logic programming solutions in several places in my 40+ years of programming. Like rules for assigning molecular mechanics force field atom types.
>OPS5 is a rule-based or production system computer language, notable as the first such language to be used in a successful expert system, the R1/XCON system used to configure VAX computers.
>The OPS (said to be short for "Official Production System") family was developed in the late 1970s by Charles Forgy while at Carnegie Mellon University. Allen Newell's research group in artificial intelligence had been working on production systems for some time, but Forgy's implementation, based on his Rete algorithm, was especially efficient, sufficiently so that it was possible to scale up to larger problems involving hundreds or thousands of rules.
I used DEC's VAX OPS5 for a couple years about around 1990. I quite liked it, and the later versions had some really nice extensions over Forgy's original design.
Then we discovered that our particular rule base could easily be ported into C using a sequence of nested if/thens that ran much faster, and we stopped using OPS5. It was a great tool for doing the initial development, though.
Looks fun :D, i think that if i ask my manager to build something out of Prolog i would probably get stab... i mean fired since most of us work in OOP.
I would love to be that insane one asking for that :D.
Real-world computers are equivalent to linear bounded automata, not true Turing machines, because they have finite memory. This technicality is mostly ignored because a computer with a large finite memory is a decent enough approximation to a Turing machine for practical purposes. But, for example, the halting problem is decidable for linear bounded automata — because there are only finitely many states, every computation must either halt or eventually revisit an earlier state and get stuck in a loop — so in theory it’s an important distinction.
It seems you didn't really read my comment though? I was arguing the relevant difference between Turing machines and FSMs was the memory system, not its infinite tape. It's interesting that the Wikipedia article on LBAs doesn't tell us whether they are considered equivalent to FSMs. It seems that by standard automata theory, they must be. Which is intuitively not the correct, since they are much more similar to Turing machines.
I did read your comment but I don’t really understand what you mean by “the memory system”. A linear bounded automaton is by definition a finite state machine for a given input (i.e. fixed tape size) because the number of possible configurations is finite. A Turing machine’s infinite tape is what stops it being a finite state machine.
Well, I said I meant the tape of a Turing machine (irrespective of its size), or the RAM of a physical computer, and that I suspected that such memory is different from other states in that read/write operations have specific lower time complexity.
> A Turing machine’s infinite tape is what stops it being a finite state machine.
Well, that's if you accept the usual automata theory definition, which was what I was arguing against. Part of having an "infinite tape" memory is not just that it is infinite, but also that it is a tape. A pushdown automaton also has infinite "memory" (though a stack, not a tape memory with random access), but it is still not equivalent to a Turing machine. Nor is it equivalent to a finite state machine.
Basically, what I suspect is that the type of "memory" system that some automaton allows determines its computational power, not whether the memory or the maximum number of its states is infinite or not.
You’re taking the use of the word “state” too literally. The original comment was complaining about how Ruby `require` adds names (constants) to a global namespace; Python `import` only binds names in the local scope.
You might be interested in Chris Salzberg’s Im [0], already usable on Ruby 3.2, or the discussion about the speculative “namespace on read” feature [1].
The three frameworks originated in Rails apps, so they have good Rails integrations, but there’s nothing Rails-specific about them and you can use them in any environment where HTML is sent from server to client, even a static web site.