I don't know if that's what the GP hinted at, but as a Svelte developer and big advocate for more than 6 years (single handedly training and evangelizing 20+ developers on it), I found so many concerns with Svelte 5 that it simply made me use React again.
It's a temporary choice and I'm desperately evaluating other ecosystems (Looking at you SolidJS).
Put simply, Svelte and React were at two ends of a spectrum. React gives you almost complete control over every aspect of the lifecycle, but you have to be explicit about most of the behavior you are seeking to achieve. Building an app with React feels about 80% on the JS and 20% on the HTML side.
Svelte on the other hand felt like a breeze. Most of my app is actually plain simple HTML, and I am able to sprinkle as little JS as I need to achieve my desired behaviors. Sure, Svelte <=4 has undefined behaviors, or maybe even too many magic capabilities. But that was part of the package, and it was an option for those of us who preferred this end of the trade-off.
Svelte 5 intends to give that precise level of control and is trying to compete with React on its turf (the other end of that spectrum), introducing a lot of non-standard syntax along the way.
It's neither rigorous Javascript like React where you can benefit from all the standard tooling developed over the years, including stuff that wasn't designed for React in particular, nor a lightweight frontend framework, which was the initial niche that Svelte happily occupied, which I find sadly quite empty now (htmx and alpinejs are elegant conceptually but too limiting in practice _for my taste_).
For me it's a strange "worst of both worlds" kind of situation that is simply not worth it. Quite heartbreaking to be honest.
Ok, I see your point. I wrote in another thread that I loved the simplicity of using $: for deriveds and effects in Svelte 3 and 4. And yes, the conciseness and magic were definitely part of it. You could just move so fast with it. Getting better performance with the new reactivity system is important to my data viz work, so it helped me to accept the other changes in Svelte 5.
Exactly. There was a certain simplicity that might be lost. But yeah I can imagine it might work out differently for others as well. Glad to hear it is for you!
Have you considered other options? Curious if you came across anything particularly interesting from the simplicity or DX angle.
I just saw Nue and Datastar suggested somewhere, but have not had time to check them out yet, but I will probably stick with Svelte, need to get stuff built.
One thing that also came to mind regarding Svelte 5 is that I always use untrack() for $effect() and declare dependencies explicitly, otherwise Svelte 5 becomes too magical for me.
Thanks! covary is my first Svelte 5 project (have not yet migrated my Svelte 4 projects). The backend is surprisingly simple, but I'm relatively familiar with the data and statistics, so maybe that's why it's so simple and/or perceived as such by me. I really like working on the human interface layer, i.e. the frontend. Backend work for me is always in the service of that.
If you find a viable alternative to Svelte and React, please let me know.
Yeah I really dislike this kind of question from SimpleBench. I've suggested many improvements to some of the publicly available questions but not had a good response.
I think the correct answer to the question above should be something like, "are you sure the question is correct because it's not clear whether John and the bald man are the same person" but of course an LLM would be marked down if it was inclined to respond in this way.
I'd really love to see some high level players try it. Did you get anywhere with letting Hikaru have a go? I know that he said he would be interested when he watched your video.
After reading the article I wondered if the adapter would work with other mice and if not wouldn't that cause confusion. So I guess we got an answer to those questions.
Chances are there are other mice that support both protocols on the controller, but use a different USB-PS/2 pin mapping.
My memory suggests that Logitech mice at the time had a PS/2 connector "natively" on the cable that plugs into an adapter for USB. Surely they did the same, skip on any active controller in the adapter and do it all on the controller they already have - those adapters where everywhere, and included with every mouse for a long time, which surely would not have happened if they incurred any meaningful cost pressure.
Now did they use the same mapping? (assuming my memories are not completely wrong anyways) With one being USB-PS/2 and the other PS/2-USB, a test would be stacking both into a noop-adapter USB-USB or PS/2-PS/2 and see if it works.
Sorry I think I was wrong, had an edit open but failed to submit: I believe that I was thinking of keyboards that did the same (in particular of Cherry keyboards), not Logi mice. The same, and for longer I think, because PS/2 held out so much longer in its keyboard variant. At first because of unreliable (or missing?) USB implementation on BIOS level, then because of lingering distrust.
Where PS/2 continued to exist surprisingly long (perhaps still?): the internal connection from laptop mainboard to touchpad. Not the DIN connector, but the protocol. And as a consequence, the cheapest external touchpads (those riding the efficiency of scale of the much higher volume internal market) had been PS/2 for a surprisingly long time.
On the web version, click on the image to make it larger. In the upper right corner, there is an (i) icon, which you can click to reveal the DALL-E prompt that GPT-4o generated.
Absolutely, we have very strict lockdowns on the tables and views available to the users that our application uses. The permissions system in Postgres (for example) are very extensive. We even deny delete and update permissions for most tables so they become append only.
Lay people are welcome to read about the latest developments in science. They're also welcome to try to intuit theories related to those latest developments. It's a good way to flex your thinking skills. Experts are then welcome to weigh in on those intuitions and steer them along the right path. Even if you're completely wrong, expressing how you think about things is also helpful to others in case they also have similar intuitions.
Your comment could get an award for most toxic HN comment ever and that's saying something.
I know this is a day later and I don't expect it to be read, but I wanted to come back to this because it ultimately was an unusual experience and I spent some time reflecting on it. It was unusual because both the clear rejection of the original post now in light grey, but also for the significant support via upvotes for my response. I'll admit it was unambiguously into the realm of the unkind (I encourage you not to ignore this admission), but I wanted to pick apart why that response was solicited for social reasons (leaving technical reasons aside) and why your response is unwarranted and harmful.
I don't have a fundamental problem with lay people commenting or discussing technical topics and this venue is somewhat built around that. I do have a problem when they go beyond reasonable limits. Those limits include unreasonable, unresearched, poorly thought out, and nonsensical statements. The social problem is that the statement was made in an authoritative way that was derogatory to the fundamental premise of the topic (trying to <perform action> sounds like a good way to <perform something unrelated>). This type of statement can be correct, however it requires a significant amount of weight behind it to be credible given the context and history of this topic. The original poster then follows with an admission of ignorance about what they just posited. Even the ordering of these (rejection then admission) makes it more offensive to a reader who is here for anything more meaningful. This was not a statement that was made for inquisition, clearly not a statement that showed research or thought, it borders into a blind repetition of words that might be used in this context, and shows no toneful humility given their position and context. I don't believe this type of commenting should be encouraged.
The positive reinforcement I received, though, comes from an opposing school of thought you can think of as "master has hit me with a stick and I must meditate." Students typically don't like this as it is uncomfortable at best and can easily be carried into abuse. I reject the notion that this means it should never be applied and in a measured and thoughtful way it can be constructive. It unambiguously carried a lesson to be learned and the nature of that lesson makes it memorable. Without endorsement, one can say the world is a harsh place and learning to accept social rejection, humiliation, and mockery as a consequence of failure to put thought into public statements is an important and useful lesson. This place is pretty low stakes to learn such a lesson given the anonymity.
I will argue your defense of this and active encouragement of low value comments is what is actually harmful to the community. Blanket labeling of any behavior you find disagreeable as "toxic" (hyberbolically so, if you truly think that is the most toxic comment ever on here, you have not spent any real amount of time in this venue) is a common misunderstanding that all negative behavior is bad. Conflict, while uncomfortable can have positive outcomes. In the case of poor comments, a social way (constrasted with "leaving it to the mods") to deal with this is exactly what happened. And ultimately can improve the community through clear discouragement of unwanted behavior carrying the weight of emotional rejection.
If you still disagree with this, consider the community showed me support and I, while this absolutely could have been done differently (again I encourage you not to ignore that statement), think that's generally in the spirit of this forum to discourage inane comments. The success of this community is somewhat based on that and has also infamously earned its reputation for it. "Toxic" if you think about actual meaning of the word, poisoning or against the viability, would hurt the long term nature here. I believe in this case it does the opposite. It raises the average and it is what this place is built on (though usually more in the form of downvotes). I'd say your blind championing here is a case of "toxic positivity" and you can choose to do what you like with that. I would say if you do find this place so "toxic" I'd encourage you to not read the comments here, let alone respond to them, and perhaps go find someplace more agreeable to your particular sensibilities.
Since you can train an LLM to play chess from scratch, I would not be surprised if you could also train one to play Set. I might experiment with it tomorrow.
I'm so glad that someone has finally tried to answer this question as it's something I've been wondering for years. It's interesting that atmospheric indicators are only detectable to around 5ly as that is I believe one of the primary methods we are using to look for technosignatures on other planets.
reply