This document defines a scheme for "AI-adressable" resources without much care about definition of "AI-addressesable" or even the properties of such resources, that require a dedicated protocol.
I get very strong "E = mc^2 + AI" vibes from it, just shoehorning the coveted letters everywhere
You said it yourself - "sugary drinks... tend towards unfavorable consequences". The change happens as the outcome of the desire, not "in the process of the pursuing it".
After listening to a certain science fiction podcast and playing through a certain space puzzle game, I think I've got a bit of a soft spot for tiny worlds, especially a world this charming! Good work
Typst is fantastic and I recommend to dive into it to see how much value it offers. To me personally, the biggest strength is the ergonomics of both the tooling and the language, and how ergonomics persist even between documents of various complexity. Writing a paper in LaTeX is nice, but making something like a CV takes some patience. Meanwhile, in typst it was quick to get started and go all the way to building resumes, character sheets, and I know of at least one occurrence of implementing symbolic math in typst language. It's not without quirks, but still, very solid alternative
I maintained my CV in Latex for years (originally got started on this due to the fear of MS Word) and recently tried out Typst. I agree with you that it's quite simple to get started with. Also, I had to maintain a Ubuntu based Docker image with everything needed for the build.
Also if anyone is looking for a little help in getting started, LLMs are pretty decent at converting (and I forget which one I used).
My CV is still in LaTeX which gives me the opportunity to procrastinate updating it (rather than actually applying for jobs) because of all of the tweaking I do.
If nothing else, typist is going go give me more opportunities to procrastinate! Nice.
All I've done in Typst is my CV, I saw it here a while back and thought it'd be a nice use case.
It took about a day to get my head round the language an another to get it looking like I wanted. It's pretty simple, but I found it easy to run up and maintain.
I would argue that the second screenshot with redesigned Lighthouse is slightly worse that the "old" design
- the vertical ruler between the sidebar and the content is gone, making page structure less pronounced
- the redesigned dropdown menu has no borders or shadows and blends with the primary background
- the redesigned dropdown menu lost the little dot which highlighted currently selected option, replacing it with a folder icon, but now it's not useful, because it's the same folder icon for each option
- the old design had really nice and noticeable "Add URL" button. I suppose, it was removed in favor of the "plus" button in the sidebar, but it's not nearly as noticeable and without the label it's not clear what it actually does
Sure, the issues in the old version are valid, but I think the redesign introduced more severe usability issues instead of mostly aesthetic issues
It's also far more difficult to read the numbers relating to the items in the drop down menu. You have to make an effort to track to the right with your eyes to make sure you are in the same row, whereas before the number was right next to the item. There is no need to have the numbers aligned because they are not for comparison.
Reusable components are prerogative of the templating system, such as React, or Vue, or server side templates that the framework of your choice uses. Htmx works with already rendered HTML fragments from the back end and doesn't do templating on its own, so there's simply no room for it to "solve" reusable components
well now we got Web Components baked in. People don't want to give up React cause it is where many paying job is coming from.
It is the age old problem between better tech or better pay? What is even worse younger dev come in wanting to learn React cause it is the one that most job post is looking for. We end up negative economic to tech quality.
Htmx essays have already been mentioned, so here are my thoughts on the matter. I feel like to have a productive discussion of REST and HATEOAS, we must first agree on the basics. Repeating my own comment from a couple of weeks ago, H stands for hypermedia, and hypermedia is a type of media, that uses common format for representing some server-driven state and embedding hypermedia controls which are presented by back-end agnostic hypermedia client to a user for discoverability and interaction.
As such, JSON driven APIs can't be REST, since there is no common format for representing hypermedia controls, which means that there's no way to implement hypermedia client which can present those controls to the user and facilitate interactions. Is there such implmentation? Yes, HTML is the hypermedia, <input>s and <button>s are controls and browsers are the clients. REST and HATEOAS is designed for the humans, and trying to somehow combine it with machine-to-machine interaction results in awkward implementations, blurry definitions and overcomplication.
Richardson maturity model is a clear indication of those problems, I see it as an admission of "well, there isn't much practicality in doing proper REST for machine-to-machine comms, but that's fine, you can only do some parts of it and it's still counts". I'm not saying we shouldn't use its ideas, resource-based URLs are nice, using feature of HTTP is reasonable, but under the name REST it leads to constant arguments between the "dissertation" crowd and "the industry has moved on" crowd. The worst/best part is both those crowds are totally right and this argument will continue for as long as we use HTTP
I made it sound like JSON APIs can't be REST in principle, which is of course not true. If someone were to create hypermedia control specification for JSON and implement hypermedia client for it, it would of course would match the definition. But since we don't have such specification and compliant client at this time, we can't do REST as it is defined
It's not like Figma forces to use those features, right? And also, hot take, "limits the possible expressions" is a good thing for application design. Application is not art, first and foremost it must solve user's use case, be accessible, discoverable, ergonomic and practical to implement. Aesthetics must serve and complement those purposes, not be the focus of the design
Text formats have the advantage of better support in version control systems. SOPS does similar thing, it stores encrypted values in yaml/json, and from my experience using this approach with git it is indeed an improvement over, say, Ansible vault, which essentially turns text files into blobs
I use pass[0] which uses a flat directory structure and git. It works great! At $dayjob we have json lockfiles committed to git and merges get pretty gnarly. Not as big of a fan of just dropping it all in json. The toml lockfiles are a bit better in git.
I get very strong "E = mc^2 + AI" vibes from it, just shoehorning the coveted letters everywhere