Ink: React for interactive CLI apps

Post by branislav » Sat, Nov 02, 2024, 6:05 AM UTC

rkagerer wrote: post #44

hajile wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people here seem to have a hard time understanding that React !== DOM React is descriptive. It creates a virtual tree and tells how that tree should be changed. What that tree renders into is a completely different problem. On the web, it renders into HTML. On your phone (ReactNative), it renders into native GUI. In ink, it uses a render engine to concat and output the text results (it's a little more complex th…

Is there a good resource that explains what React is and how it works, without limiting the focus to just the usual web applications?

Post by croes » Sat, Nov 02, 2024, 11:25 AM UTC

seveibar wrote: post #51

kristopolous wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

XML is a much maligned and poorly understood technology. It lacks glossy pitch pages and hypemen like react. Things like XSLT are really quite good if you can get past "ew xml icky" You can inline different schemas in modular, bazaar like ways from a variety of sources and pull in different parsers that do different tasks. For instance you could have, say an object subtype and pretend you, a spreadsheet developer mad…

XML is insanely powerful, there are 1,000 page books on XML alone. But React is a much smaller standard that extends XML to an insanely effective point (assuming basic JS as base knowledge) It's because I like XML that I think JSX is a logical/effective extension and we should support it as the sort of "champion" of declarative design Just to emphasize this: Why has XML been losing as the standard config format? Why…

Post by hu3 » Sat, Nov 02, 2024, 2:01 PM UTC

oorza wrote: post #32

dragonwriter wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sure, but ten years ago, if I told you the concept of a “bottom type” would be common knowledge with web developers or they’d consider type algebra second nature, you’d have laughed at me. If you told me that was the case today with web developers generally, I’d laugh at you even harder than I would have if you made that prediction ten years ago.

All the web developers I've worked with in the last four years understand the concept of a bottom type, even if they've never been introduced to the formal phrase, because `never` is the explicit bottom type in TS and appears all the time. You can't go very long consuming libraries written in TS before you run into it, at which point you become familiar with it. Similarly, a function that accepts (explicitly) `A | B…

Post by Capricorn2481 » Sat, Nov 02, 2024, 3:15 PM UTC

angra_mainyu wrote: post #64

cupofjoakim wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the most robust type-system in the world (Typescript) This is very high praise for something that only provides safety at compile time and not runtime.

Not to mention: type Thing = string | boolean; const arr: string[] = []; function add(item: Thing, dst: Thing[]): void { dst.push(item); } add(false, arr); Is valid typescript.

Post by yencabulator » Sat, Nov 02, 2024, 4:15 PM UTC

oorza wrote: post #32

dragonwriter wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sure, but ten years ago, if I told you the concept of a “bottom type” would be common knowledge with web developers or they’d consider type algebra second nature, you’d have laughed at me. If you told me that was the case today with web developers generally, I’d laugh at you even harder than I would have if you made that prediction ten years ago.

All the web developers I've worked with in the last four years understand the concept of a bottom type, even if they've never been introduced to the formal phrase, because `never` is the explicit bottom type in TS and appears all the time. You can't go very long consuming libraries written in TS before you run into it, at which point you become familiar with it. Similarly, a function that accepts (explicitly) `A | B…