Not exactly the pinnacle of usability, to be fair

A few years ago I bought from Cleartones[1] and have been quite happy with them. They guy who made them[2] then went to lead for twelve years the sound design on Apple’s design team

[1]: http://cleartones.net/ [2]: https://www.hugoverweij.com/

that's like saying my job is to transfer money from my employer to the homeowner. Technically true but something else happens in the process

So you saying mashups were literally just connecting 2 things and selling it.

I usually am not too harsh on Safari on implementation of new features but this is a bummer, and reflects poorly on them

is this the great innovation that the GDPR is stifling in Europe? (sorry for the snark)

different radius on every corner and we're back in the winamp skin era, not bad!

Insinuating the person you’re discussing with has a psychological problem is also not a great way to win minds

I did no such thing. That you see such is an example of front end developers seeing everything through emotionally tinted glasses. If you want to talk numbers we can talk numbers, but it doesn't matter if the first matter is whether or your not the numbers offend you.

ESLint on medium/big projects can be pretty slow and if you use type aware rules it opts out of caching

it's not a really unbiased view. React's team has made very clear that they won't even start considering a different approach, and this (and other) is just their narrative to support their stance (which never seemed under discussion), and it borders on gaslighting the community which still has to deal at least with the two giant issues of:

1) knowing why something rendered is almost impossible 2) even for skilled developers who know what they are doing it's quite easy to introduce performance regressions. In other words, it's not a pit of success performance wise

Meanwhile (and this is also never addressed by the React team) if you use other frameworks some issues (for one: effect dependencies) simply are not issues

"widely available" has a precise meaning that includes Firefox (both desktop and Android). it might be irrelevant for some, but let's not twist industry definitions

Based on marketshare, Firefox can easily be excluded from "widely available"

This website says certain features work on firefox. But they don't. You can disregard firefox if you like. But if this "Modern CSS Code Snippets" website explicitly tells me their snippets work in firefox, I expect the snippets to work in firefox. Many of them do not.

again, "widely available" should not be intended in the general sense but as a much more precise industry term. "Baseline widely available" is defined[1] as a feature which has been available on all the core browsers (Chrome desktop and Android, Edge, Firefox desktop and Android, Safari on Mac and iOS) for two and a half years

[1]: https://web.dev/baseline

I don't really care about someones phony definition of widely available. If it runs on 90% of user's browsers, it's widely available. I'll gladly make a web page that puts this definition online so that you can also reference it in discussions, if you want.