61–70 of 230 posts
I just want Xcode, but less buggy. A lot less buggy. Sheesh.
You could try AppCode (personally I ended up preferring Xcode despite all its pain points, I can’t really get on with Jetbrains tools, but YMMV!)
I just want Xcode, but less buggy. A lot less buggy. Sheesh.
lol yes. Really, I just want an XCode without all the cruft of an IDE. Like what VSCode is to VS.
But is is crazy buggy. It's also YUGE. It's only exceeded in size, by games.
I don't know if this exists or not, but it's something I've always wanted. I love and hate unit testing. It's a fantastic idea that I've never seen successfully implemented in practice, mostly because the tests invariably fall by the wayside. At the very least, it's a burden to support them. I'd love a tool that would observe my code during runtime - capturing all inputs and outputs from every function, as well as th…
Are you using object-oriented programming or a more functional style? Without classes, unit tests become a lot more readable and manageable.
I don't know if this exists or not, but it's something I've always wanted. I love and hate unit testing. It's a fantastic idea that I've never seen successfully implemented in practice, mostly because the tests invariably fall by the wayside. At the very least, it's a burden to support them. I'd love a tool that would observe my code during runtime - capturing all inputs and outputs from every function, as well as th…
I use Deno and its standard library for testing with Puppeteer. I've found unit tests overrated and scenarios underrated (ie testing pyramid).
And yes that's a "developer tool" because with both Emacs and Pharo (witch means classic user-programmable desktop environments, because that's what they really are) using a desktop is actually programming it as a normal daily activity where some just automate boring stuff, some others do a bit more complex automation in various shade of grey toward "system level" programmers, all with the same environment and work model instead of IBM-like (originally that's was) compartmentalization/separation of anything to make more profit and makes people feel powerless just impeding them to easily mold their own environments, at any level, programmers included.
Remember the early web, when people used to look at existing websites to learn how it was done? “View Source” used to be a career-starter for a lot of people, but has become largely useless today due to transpilation, frameworks, and other abstraction layers. I’d love to see a browser extension provide an “Explain Source” context menu item, which sends you to a pane in Developer Tools that shows: - an estimation whic…
One (lengthy) nitpick based on a word you used:
> estimation
From that, my guess is that you're implying that because of the spaghetti-pile of bundled JavaScript, CSS and HTML that we have nowadays that it's not possible to use predictable, well-defined standards to make this information available to users.
And you're probably right, it's a mess!
But I would suggest that we try hard to figure out better ways to make the technology simple again, and move towards those, rather than building a complex guess-the-technologies layer on top.
Ideas towards that:
- Move (standardized) package metadata into JavaScript modules themselves so that the data can be inspected and surfaced at runtime (status: I'm not aware of this being standardized, but it may be)
- Improve the ability and mechanisms available to import JavaScript modules (status: this is happening gradually)
- Remove the requirement for applications to perform any bundling at all (status: there's recognized frustration and maintenance burden regarding bundling, but I haven't yet seen no-bundling solutions arising)
- Reduce the need for minimization of content served over-the-wire on the web (status: debatable -- it's probably still required for now, because particularly JavaScript, even after compression, can be fairly large and may still be served in low-bandwidth environments)
A key benefit of this "re-simplify the web" approach would be that as well as enabling the explorative, hands-on approach you suggest, it should also make the learning curve easier for the resulting newcomers.
Find a way with entr[0] and an http server to tell the browser to reload the currently viewed file if it changes. Today, entr allows you to restart a command when a file changes. A web server allows you to serve local files to your browser. If you use npm, lots of libs allow you to serve your web ui, and make the browser reload the page when something has changed. But this is tied to npm, and even to the framework yo…
Find a way with entr[0] and an http server to tell the browser to reload the currently viewed file if it changes. Today, entr allows you to restart a command when a file changes. A web server allows you to serve local files to your browser. If you use npm, lots of libs allow you to serve your web ui, and make the browser reload the page when something has changed. But this is tied to npm, and even to the framework yo…
If I'm understanding you correctly, then this combination of two tools from the same author will get you that: https://github.com/cortesi/modd https://github.com/cortesi/devd
In other words: "pip list --outdated" but with a changelog and code diff for each dependency.
I don't know if this exists or not, but it's something I've always wanted. I love and hate unit testing. It's a fantastic idea that I've never seen successfully implemented in practice, mostly because the tests invariably fall by the wayside. At the very least, it's a burden to support them. I'd love a tool that would observe my code during runtime - capturing all inputs and outputs from every function, as well as th…
This sounds like fuzzing. Do you want fuzzing?