I don't know if I'm right or not but I tend to use the word "transpiler" to talk about something that transforms into the same language as before.
So for example Babel is a transpiler since it turns JavaScript into JavaScript - it just allows you to use certain features (usually of a later version, or a draft) in earlier versions. So I write es8 and use babel to turn it into es5 compatible javascript, I'd call that transpiling.
However, sticking with JavaScript, I'd say that coffeescript -> javascript is compilation since coffeescript is not the same language and very syntactically different.
So I guess converting one language into another syntactically different language is a compiler. While converting a language into the same language but transforming specific parts for whatever reason (such as interop or backwards compat) is a transpiler.
That's how I tend to think of it anyway.
But I agree, probably could just use compiler for all of them, especially if not using it means added ambiguity.
Completely agree with the author of the article. Would love to run https by default for lan without having to require users to install my custom CA cert. I don't really understand why self signed certs can't be allowed in browsers and the browser just notify the user that the website identity can't be verified while the actual communication between the two is still encrypted.
If anything I would say that a solution would be for browsers to adopt the following changes.
1) Make HTTP plaintext show the warning you currently get with a self signed cert (ie: warning of death)
2) Make HTTPS self-signed show a "not secure" warning in the address bar (currently what happens on HTTP plaintext) with more info available on a click
Are you suggesting this change merely for users navigating to IP addresses in reserved IP space, or for everything?
If it's the latter, all that stands between an active MitM and my paypal.com credentials is a non-blocking "Not Secure" indicator in the address bar. That's not really acceptable.
2) If the connection to the server is encrypted or not
would be a good idea in modern browsers. Because the article is completely correct, everything as it is right now essentially disincentives anyone producing IoT or any other kinds of consumer based lan devices from using https.
Cool, but in JSX it's just javascript as you would write it anywhere else in your app, except encapsulated in braces. How is that not simpler for people who should be Javascript developers?
Since the logic inside of JSX is just JavaScript encapsulated in braces, you're basically saying that Vue's angular like attributes are better than just simple javascript syntax?
I don't understand how
<ul>
<li v-for="num in listItems">{{num}}</li>
</ul>
Both are pretty readable, but the latter is essentially normal javascript, with the idea that you can return dom elements in it. The only thing that a javascript developer with zero jsx experience needs to know is that you can express dom elements within your javascript and treat them exactly like functions that return that element (which is what they are).
What someone has to know to parse your vue example is the exact syntax for for loops in vue, evidently the syntax in this example is quite simple but what if they want to perform extra logic in that loop to modify which elements to show? In the react example all they have to do is know javascript.... in Vue they have to go look up how to do that in Vue.
Absolutely agree. Most front-end meetups/conferences I've been to have had the majority of people there expressing a dislike for JSX. I still don't understand that to this day, to me JSX is one of the best things about React.
You're right, but it's one of those things that you can basically treat it as html until you can't - and the points at which you can't are quite specific and other than className - are rarely used. Also the dynamically inserted html param being obnoxious is by design - they don't want you to dynamically insert html, and that's a good thing. Honestly you shouldn't ever be using that param.
I feel like this is often the reason people dislike React, and it mostly comes out of a misunderstanding of JSX and es6 syntax and interaction. Why do I say this? Because I've yet to hear an argument that came after a statement like above which was actually true in any way. Most arguments that come after actually expose the fact that the author of the statement simply doesn't understand the syntax usually because they've never really bothered to try to use it and instead are simply turned off by something new in their code.
> It forces you to write loops, conditionals, etc, outside of the markup you are currently writing/reading
This is quite simply false, it doesn't force you to do any of these things. A lot of people seem to think it does which again comes from a misunderstanding of the syntax. You're quite able to either embed your logic into the JSX or not, whichever you prefer. I most often see people lean toward the former unless the logic in question is extremely complex in which case it could be argued it's best being removed from the markup anyway. But JSX itself does not force you either way.
> It's like writing shitty PHP code without templates
I simply don't see a viable comparison here at all.
> It also forces you to use a lot of boilerplate like bind(), Object.keys(), etc.
Again, this is simply untrue. In fact I'd argue that if you're using lots of .binds you're doing it wrong. .binds inside your render function are actually bad practice due to the fact that they mean you're adding overhead of creating new bound functions as each .bind returns a brand new function every time your render tree executes. The overhead of such is probably negligible, however it's still inefficient and cumbersome and thus is bad practice.
As for Object.keys() - While I share your dislike of the overuse of this particular method, I'd love an example of where you think this is forced on you by JSX because for the life of me I can't think of one.
> There is no official React router
This I completely agree with, it is annoying, and I too am not a fan of react-router. However it's so easy to create your own routing setup and/or plug and play other lightweight ones that I don't usually think of it as a particular plus/minus point when comparing to frameworks like Vue.
Are you being deliberately obtuse? It's a pretty important distinction that these were not some native tribesmen with millennia of ancestral history tied up in the lands.
100s of years though, so from the perspective of an individual on the island it's exactly the same -- their entire life was on that island. So, the distinction is pointless and reeks of apologetics IMO.
"Sir Bruce Greatbatch, KCVO, CMG, MBE, governor of the Seychelles, ordered all the dogs on Diego Garcia to be killed. More than 1000 pets were gassed with exhaust fumes. "They put the dogs in a furnace where the people worked", Lisette Talatte, in her 60s, told me, "and when their dogs were taken away in front of them our children screamed and cried". Sir Bruce had been given responsibility for what the US called "cleansing" and "sanitising" the islands; and the killing of the pets was taken by the islanders as a warning."
By that logic, ethnic Europeans are the 'original inhabitants' of North America.
I'm also unclear on why you quoted what the British did in your post - how does it relate to whether or not calling those people 'original inhabitants' is misleading? Do you believe that, if the British did something sufficiently wrong to them, that calling them 'original inhabitants' will be less misleading?
Not everything is a contest. It doesn't matter how "original" natives are if they're natives.
The reason "ethnic Europeans" aren't "the original inhabitants of North America" is that European settlers violently displaced (or killed) the previous inhabitants.
Heck, the "original" inhabitants of North America (as far as we know) actually originated in what is now mostly Russia if you go back a few dozen millenia. And if you go back further than that (according to mainstream scientific consensus) we all likely originated in Africa. Defining the term "original inhabitants" as an absolute is blatantly begging the question (specifically it only works if you're a creationist).
People were subjected to physical and psychological violence to be forcibly removed from their home and birthplace. That's bad enough, no matter how many generations lived in the same place before. This isn't about who's had it worse.
They were expelled in 1965. The current year is 2017. If we wait a few more decades this discussion will be pointless either way.
I'm not opposing clarifications. I'm opposing quibbling over the semantics of "original" as if the distinction adds anything to the conversation.
Their parents lived there, they were born there, they were violently expelled and suffered emotional abuse. The number of dead ancestors (or lack thereof) in the ground does not invalidate the suffering these people were forced to endure.
By European standards the US is mostly inhabited by non-natives. So I guess it'd be okay to forcibly expel everyone but the Natives because they don't have millennia of ancestral history?
I'd hope the more important distinction is how people are removed, not how many generations of dead people there were before them.
If a man shows up with a gun to run me off my land, it doesn't matter whether it was my father that bought it or my grandfather or my great-grandfather. What's important is the forcible dispropriation itself.
Cases like this just make a mockery of the Lockean natural rights theory of property.
