text stringlengths 0 1.36k |
|---|
**Alex Sexton:** Yeah, sure. |
**Rebecca Murphey:** You might not need Redux. |
**Alex Sexton:** Do you have a web page for that? |
**Rebecca Murphey:** I don't, but I will by the time this podcast is over. |
**Adam Sontag:** "I will by the time my company sponsors me to write one, so that we get some sweet marketing buzz." \[laughter\] |
**Rebecca Murphey:** No, we were rewriting a thing on Indeed.com that I can't really say much more about, but we were rewriting it and we were using Preact and Preact Redux and Redux, and I did the Webpack bundle analyzer thing, and it was like 7k of my 21k bundle was for Redux and Preact Redux... And it was like, you ... |
**Adam Sontag:** Just like they did in the Articles of Confederation... \[laughter\] |
**Alex Sexton:** Jeez, the deep hole... \[laughter\] And I already praised Addy once in this episode, which is more than enough, but he just informed us of an article written by Dan Abramov, who wrote this -- |
**Rebecca Murphey:** Oh yeah, great! "You might not need Redux." |
**Alex Sexton:** ...called "You might not need Redux." |
**Paul Irish:** That's a good way to get out ahead of things... Ship something on your own and then write the "You may not need this" post before anyone else does. |
**Alex Sexton:** For sure. Alright, I think we running up on a break, so... Yeah. |
**Break:** \[44:07\] |
**Alex Sexton:** And we're back! One segment that I believe only happened one time - I don't think it was officially a segment, because in the episode we didn't know it would become a segment, because - a lot of becauses in this - Adam intro-ed it. There was some show on The Food Network, Adam...? Throwdown - is that w... |
**Adam Sontag:** Oh yeah, Bobby Flay's Throwdown! \[dramatically\] Throwdown! |
**Alex Sexton:** Exactly! I think Adam and Paul had planned an argument to have, and Adam gave it The Throwdown section, but... I recently got into a pleasant, friendly argument with a friend about function binding in the new world, especially in the world where we're not compiling fat arrows. Fat arrow functions cause... |
This friend was saying that by default now we should use fat arrows that way; everything is always bound to a lexical "this". Let's lint for that, and let's not allow us to use the function keyword anymore. Thoughts? |
**Rebecca Murphey:** In the code that I write, I feel like we do this a lot, but not always, but it's because we need the -- |
**Alex Sexton:** So there are a few cases where it's fine, like constructors - there's no constructors with fat arrows, and a few other edge cases. Those would be perfectly fine to lint for. But I can definitely understand the argument where the fat arrow -- like, in my mind, unbound functions are the default, and if y... |
**Rebecca Murphey:** Yeah, that's kind of what I'm saying. I think that we tend to do this anyway, but we don't lint for it, but I think it's more out of laziness that we tend to do it, because it's less typing. Whether we need the "this" or not, we just do it because it's a really handy way to write. |
\[47:58\] We do this all the time with arrow functions that you pass to map, or something like that; we don't NEED the "this" binding, but it's just a handy way to do it. |
**Alex Sexton:** Right, yeah. So I guess I lose. It seems like... |
**Rebecca Murphey:** But I don't know if there's a reason to do it... |
**Alex Sexton:** My opinion is pretty much that I'm fine for our company choosing to have an application where we lint in this way and write JavaScript in this style, but I think it's weird to refer to fat arrows as like the default way to write functions and to refer to functions. |
**Adam Sontag:** And I feel like it's kind of a beginner-unfriendly history, like it's a retcon of JavaScript to try and be like "This is the new right way to do it, and everything you've seen that's older than three years ago is just wrong and weird now." |
**Alex Sexton:** Yeah, and I think one interesting thing about this person is that pretty much their entire JavaScript career is in the era of fat arrows, so I think actually to them fat arrows are default; like, why would you write out function? And to me, that's just a bizarre concept. The first thing I do is write a... |
Some of the stuff with fat arrows is inside classes can get a little wonky. You have to do an equals fat arrow rather than do the shorthand, because then things aren't bound to a lexical "this". So there are some tricks and stuff that don't make it super easy, but I don't know... I think I'm kind of sold. |
**Rebecca Murphey:** I think that you could rephrase this as like "Kids these days!" or "Get off my lawn!". |
**Alex Sexton:** Sure, sure, sure... Nay Query. |
**Adam Sontag:** Well, I mean, there's no better time for the kids to get off your lawn than right f\*\*\*\*n now. \[laughter\] |
**Rebecca Murphey:** We're gonna have to beep that out, aren't we? Family-friendly podcast. |
**Alex Sexton:** I think every once in a while we get an explicit tag, so... We'll see. Even back in the day we used to curse -- I mean, not a ton, but a good amount. But how many sparkles and ponies and rainbows were presented definitely did not give a fair indication of the amount of cursing that'd end up on a show. |
This isn't a segment either, but we did this during our live reunion show last time, and I thought I might bring it back. I wanted to feel the air for predictions for the web or JavaScript in the next 1-5 years, or something like that. What's gonna change, what standards are gonna make it, what's gonna die? Does anyone... |
**Rebecca Murphey:** I have one... Somebody's gonna tell me why I'm wrong... |
**Alex Sexton:** It's the point of having a podcast. |
**Rebecca Murphey:** In five years - maybe less, but I don't know how much less - Brave is gonna overtake Firefox. |
**Paul Irish:** Wow... |
**Adam Sontag:** Brave prediction. \[laughter\] |
**Alex Sexton:** For what it's worth, my primary browser has been Brave on mobile and desktop for maybe the last month, and most of the time it's fine. |
**Paul Irish:** What's the rendering engine? What's Brave built on? |
**Alex Sexton:** Chromium. |
**Rebecca Murphey:** You knew the answer to that. |
**Paul Irish:** No, for some reason I actually thought they built it on Gecko. |
**Rebecca Murphey:** No, it's Chromium. |
**Alex Sexton:** It definitely looks more Firefoxy in a few places, and I dislike a lot of those rough edges, but I think they've got a pretty small team, especially working on that type of stuff, so I forgive them for now. |
**Rebecca Murphey:** Yeah, I use it as my primary personal browser, I don't use it for -- like, I have a Chrome for work, that I use for Gmail, but then I use Brave for browsing. |
**Alex Sexton:** \[52:00\] Yeah. I was talking to Brendan a little bit on Twitter about new features... One weird thing, Paul, is that DevTools in Brave can't be doc-ed. It has to be a separate window, because of some -- I think it has to do with sandboxing, or something like that. |
**Paul Irish:** Process sandboxing. There's two separate processes, so putting them in the same thing is kind of painful, I guess... But interesting... |
**Alex Sexton:** Yeah, and they're looking into doing some stuff where you could put Brave as your native runtime - Webkit native, or something like that? Electron - that's the one. Electron is like the Webkit native thing, and some people are looking into getting Brave as the browser that by default is more user secur... |
And my last tidbit there is private browsing - it's something that I think users get wrong a lot of times. They think that you can log into your Twitter account in private browsing mode and no one knows it's you... They don't realize that your identity is tied to them a hundred different ways, and just not having your ... |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.