71–78 of 78 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't call it anonymous if it isn't actually anonymous.
I think they mean how would you make it more anonymous? Otherwise you're applying a pretty rigid definition that no system has met.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it'a controlled restart, you can dump your memory onto a file when shutting down, then reload the dump when you restart. If it's a crash, yes, you will lose everything. Or you can do Append Only File persistence like Redis, in which case you won't lose anything in each case.
> dump your memory onto a file when shutting down, then reload the dump when you restart To me this sounds like building your own db but worse.
Of course you'll have to choose the right data structures in memory, but that can be ad hoc to your app, so considerably less complex than a general purpose database.
The only problem is when you go out of memory, but if you have an eviction strategy (i.e. a 24 hours life per post), you don't need to scale for a long time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> dump your memory onto a file when shutting down, then reload the dump when you restart To me this sounds like building your own db but worse.
Agree for the dump idea, but AOF persistence is quite easy to do (literally open a file and append). Of course you'll have to choose the right data structures in memory, but that can be ad hoc to your app, so considerably less complex than a general purpose database. The only problem is when you go out of memory, but if you have an eviction strategy (i.e. a 24 hours life per post), you don't need to scale for a long…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agree for the dump idea, but AOF persistence is quite easy to do (literally open a file and append). Of course you'll have to choose the right data structures in memory, but that can be ad hoc to your app, so considerably less complex than a general purpose database. The only problem is when you go out of memory, but if you have an eviction strategy (i.e. a 24 hours life per post), you don't need to scale for a long…
We’d still need code to load the data back, also to continously test that code (or debug in production), plus handle data migrations. There might be more use cases. Using a regular db might be simpler at this point, depending on the project’s setup.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How about loading the table row you just added instead of reloading the entire page, table and all? I'm against bloated apps and ads, in favor of using forms and HTMLs strengths, but JS is the tool and not the cause of poor design. A web developer that doesn't use it is offloading their identity based allergy onto the users bandwidth. Plus you can make modals without JS
> How about loading the table row you just added instead of reloading the entire page, table and all? Show me a single site that uses js in this way. But, and here's the trick... it has to *actually* use less network bandwidth. My issue isn't with js as a web development tool. My issue is with js when it's the wrong tool. > A web developer that doesn't use it is offloading their identity based allergy onto the users…
Lots of sites use JS that way. This was the default way of doing it with JQuery. Yeah, an object with a couple fields is going to use less bandwidth than loading the whole page, in the case of a row.
I agree that you can absolutely find people overusing JS, but your original position was the web is better off without JS. In fact, you implied developers using it weren't competent, but now you've changed it to "actually it's okay if it's used right" which is what I said.
> All of your claims lack evidence.
Nothing I said lacks evidence, in fact they're pretty basic things you can verify? It seems like you want me to prove the entire Internet is using JS how you like. I'm sorry, bad sites are always gonna suck with or without JS
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> How about loading the table row you just added instead of reloading the entire page, table and all? Show me a single site that uses js in this way. But, and here's the trick... it has to *actually* use less network bandwidth. My issue isn't with js as a web development tool. My issue is with js when it's the wrong tool. > A web developer that doesn't use it is offloading their identity based allergy onto the users…
> How about loading the table row you just added instead of reloading the entire page, table and all? Lots of sites use JS that way. This was the default way of doing it with JQuery. Yeah, an object with a couple fields is going to use less bandwidth than loading the whole page, in the case of a row. I agree that you can absolutely find people overusing JS, but your original position was the web is better off without…
You gave an example that I agree with, that would be a useful use of JS. Does that exist, or is that just a theoretical example? Theoretically, a lot of stuff is good. Theoretically, amphetamines could be over the counter... everyone just needs to use them responsibly!