My meaning is that good URL design was more prevalent when people consciously included more links to other websites within their own website. This is because making well formed URLs is of importance if you think people are actually going to take that URL and link it somewhere. The rest of my comment is snark around SPAs, because I think they conversely do not often do URL design well (manipulating the DOM off the back of JSON REST API calls, rather than guiding the state of the page off the URL, allows one not to have to think about it as much as one should).
> But this is not a new problem or one "among the react crowd".
I'm really struggling to understand how the author connected using frameworks with using divs for clickable elements. And yes, this problem predated React and HTMX.
One of my biggest pet peeves is throwing shade at a certain tech or group of people who use that tech and the proceeding to demonstrate that they don't know anything about said tech.
And React. Using divs for buttons has absolutely nothing to do with whether you're using HTMX, React, or just plain Javascript.
Maybe they're a younger developer and weren't around pre-React, but the idea that using a div instead of a button for a clickable element is somehow new or only pertinent if you're using a framework makes me think the author is confused about these things work.
> One of the weirdest “debates” I seem to perpetually have with framework-enthusiastic developers is whether or not a <div> is “just as good” as a <button>.
How does one's desire to use a framework have any impact on their ability to recognize the usefulness of a button? Did I miss something? Is there some portion of any of the major framework documenation that suggests it's better to use divs instead of buttons?
> Among the React crowd, and also among people who seem to enjoy HTMX, I see a lot this…
Lol This has been a problem since way before React hit the scene. And people not using frameworks aren't magically immune to using divs instead of buttons.
What statement is attention whoring? The statements made by the President himself?
The article you linked says this:
> This experiment performed as predicted; consistent with the self-imposed moratorium on nuclear explosive testing that the United States has held since 1992, it did not form a self-sustaining, supercritical chain reaction.
And yet, in the BBC article, Trump is said to have said:
> President Donald Trump has called on US military leaders to resume testing
Pretty obvious he doesn't mean "resume 2024 testing". He also said this:
> "With others doing testing, I think it's appropriate that we do also,"
Which would conflict with resuming the testing that was done in 2024 (if it ever stopped).
> Trump's announcement did not include details of how the tests would occur
Again, if it was what was happening in 2024, what new details would need to be added?
He has been obsessed with using nuclear weapons since he took office 2016. He even proposed nuking a hurricane.
> "With others doing testing, I think it's appropriate that we do also,"
Others are only testing the delivery vehicles for nuclear weapons (missiles, submarines), not the nuclear weapons themselves. So "Because of other countries testing programs, I have instructed the Department of War to start testing our Nuclear Weapons on an equal basis" may also mean that the weapons won't be detonated in these tests.
Who is attention whore and bullshitter. For any other president statements equal policy, that's not so with Trump.
The statement is so vague that it does not indicate out of ordinary nuclear testing. The statement was made in TruthSocial. There is no presidendtial action (proclamation, memorandum, or executive order.) He might be just talking shit.
> Q: What prompted you to announce you're resuming nuclear testing right before the meeting with Xi?
> TRUMP: They seem to all be nuclear testing. We have more nuclear weapons than anybody. We don't do testing. We halted it many years ago, but w/ others doing testing I think it's appropriate we do also
I think he's pretty explicitly saying that he wants to start doing testing we aren't currently doing.
But what does LLM-generated mean? What if I use CoPilot for completions? Is that considered "AI generated"? What if I grab the code from Claude, and update greater than 50%. Am I now taking ownership of it as my code?
The fact that “query” and “ask” are synonyms in English does not make the patterns the same.
The key design goal in this thread was to create a pure functional core, which you can “ask” things of. That pattern is useful on both the command and query side of a CQRS system, and a different thing from splitting up mutating and reading operations as CQRS proposes
Maybe I misunderstand you though. Say you have a CQRS system that reads and writes to a database. Are you proposing the query side be implemented in pure side-effect-free functional code? How should the pure code make the network calls to the database?
That is not something that’s necessary for all CQRS systems, but maybe is something you’ve heard for the subset that people call “Event Sourcing”? There it’s a design goal that the system only records events that are occurring, so there’s no domain level validation that can be done on the command path - the user pressed the button whether we like it or not, so to speak. Whether the event has the intended effect is worked out after the event is recorded.
But there’s nothing in the more general idea of “separate reads from writes” that mandates “no validation on writes”
Commands can validate their input in CQS. What they don't do, in strict CQS, is return values. They can set state which can then be queried after execution which can let you retrieve an updated result or check to see if an error occurred during execution or whatever.
If the code sucks, reject it. If it doesn't, accept it.
This isn't hard.
reply