You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The package that linked you here is now pure ESM. It cannot be require()'d from CommonJS.
This means you have the following choices:
Use ESM yourself. (preferred)
Use import foo from 'foo' instead of const foo = require('foo') to import the package. You also need to put "type": "module" in your package.json and more. Follow the below guide.
If the package is used in an async context, you could use await import(…) from CommonJS instead of require(…).
Stay on the existing version of the package until you can move to ESM.
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
I heard some points of criticism to how React deals with reactivity and it's focus on "purity". It's interesting because there are really two approaches evolving. There's a mutable + change tracking approach and there's an immutability + referential equality testing approach. It's difficult to mix and match them when you build new features on top. So that's why React has been pushing a bit harder on immutability lately to be able to build on top of it. Both have various tradeoffs but others are doing good research in other areas, so we've decided to focus on this direction and see where it leads us.
I did want to address a few points that I didn't see get enough consideration around the tradeoffs. So here's a small brain dump.
"Compiled output results in smaller apps" - E.g. Svelte apps start smaller but the compiler output is 3-4x larger per component than the equivalent VDOM approach. This is mostly due to the code that is usually shared in the VDOM "VM" needs to be inlined into each component. The tr
Location - The location of the application. Usually just a URL, but the location can contain multiple pieces of information that can be used by an app
pathname - The "file/directory" portion of the URL, like invoices/123
search - The stuff after ? in a URL like /assignments?showGrades=1.
query - A parsed version of search, usually an object but not a standard browser feature.
hash - The # portion of the URL. This is not available to servers in request.url so its client only. By default it means which part of the page the user should be scrolled to, but developers use it for various things.
state - Object associated with a location. Think of it like a hidden URL query. It's state you want to keep with a specific location, but you don't want it to be visible in the URL.
“In what way is JS any more maintainable than CSS? How does writing CSS in JS make it any more maintainable?”
Happy to chat about this. There’s an obvious disclaimer that there’s a cost to css-in-js solutions, but that cost is paid specifically for the benefits it brings; as such it’s useful for some usecases, and not meant as a replacement for all workflows.
(These conversations always get heated on twitter, so please believe that I’m here to converse, not to convince. In return, I promise to listen to you too and change my opinions; I’ve had mad respect for you for years and would consider your feedback a gift. Also, some of the stuff I’m writing might seem obvious to you; I’m not trying to tell you if all people of some of the details, but it might be useful to someone else who bumps into this who doesn’t have context)
So the big deal about css-in-js (cij) is selectors.
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters