People everywhere saying ecma script is a bad name feels like oracle hired people to hate on the best alternative so that demo keeps "fighting the fight" and make oracle lawyers more rich.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with sound of ecma script (maybe it's just a bit difficult on the tongue?). And not, it doesn't read like eczema, there's absolutely nothing related with that name other than the first two and last characters, reading one and the other they are completely different. It doesn't make sense to say they are similar. Stop with the astroturfing.
Everyone I see hating on ecma script simply say it's a bad name without argumenting or say it's similar to eczema, are we 12 now?
Potentially it could cause confusion between the spec and the language. But tbh I think the mistake was to create that differentiation in the first place. Let's just join these two together and there'll be no more head scratching of what is what.
Exactly. I would just rename it to something nicer and forget about Java - it has very little to do with it nowadays anyway. A new name can even retain .js extensions like: JetScript, JoyScript, JuiceScript, JadeScript, JunoScript, whatever...
> instead of writing 100 class names for every element, every page, every project, again and again…
I'm turned off from daisyUI with marketing like this. The alternative to daisyUI certainly isn't this.
I use Tailwind in a similar way that daisyUI does: by putting my utility classes in components and reusing the components.
daisyUI's value prop is that not everyone wants to do this for their custom design system. They should just stick to that instead of making false claims.
> There is a popular argument that a software developer’s job is not write software but to solve a user’s problem. Bullshit
Wait, what?
> I was never particularly interested in the code itself
> Instead, I was always more interested in the product
Confusing contradictions aside, I had trouble engaging with this article.
The author seems to think every developer thinks like they do. Some people actually enjoy helping their business/users.
The author also has trouble imagining other perspectives as a people manager. From the linked article,
> I do not get any sort of high from managing people. I don’t think anyone gets that same high from this role
Hate to break it to the author again, but some people actually enjoy seeing those they mentor/manage succeed.
Being a people manager isn’t the right fit for everyone. Perhaps being a developer in the next 20, 5, or 1 year won’t be the right fit for the same people it is for today.
It's like when image generators came out and people looks surprised that some people actually enjoy spending hours with a pencil to draw something and have not immediately come in mass to push the "generate" button.
This was my reaction exactly. I personally get my endorphins as a manager from seeing products get traction. The author clearly thinks differently from me and it seems like they don't believe devs like me exist.
> Some people actually enjoy helping their business/users.
Beyond that - doing coding without solving problems or enabling anyone/anything is just doing art for art's sake. It may have a place, but its more personal, a hobby, an expression than anything tangible to be used in the real world - leaving aside business.
Product is not the same as code. We code to build a product, sure, but I think the author means they are interested in designing the product to solve users problems (a.k.a UX)
