This is a living document. Everything in this document is made in good faith of being accurate, but like I just said; we don't yet know everything about what's going on.
On March 29th, 2024, a backdoor was discovered in xz-utils, a suite of software that
| export const chaosTestStrings = (): void => { | |
| const textNodes = getAllTextNodes(document.body); | |
| for (const node of textNodes) { | |
| const textNodeLength = node.textContent ? node.textContent.length : 0; | |
| if (node.textContent === null) { | |
| return; | |
| } | |
| if (node.parentElement instanceof Element) { | |
| if (node.parentElement.dataset.originalText === undefined) { |
JavaScript does not bother you too much with types (at first), which is both a blessing and a cure. But we all know the Boolean type. Boolean variables can either be true or false. Yes or no.
Every value in JavaScript can be translated into a boolean, true or false. Values that translate to true are truthy, values that translate to false are falsy. Simple.
This is about two ways to make that translation.
| function useAbortController() { | |
| const abortControllerRef = React.useRef() | |
| const getAbortController = React.useCallback(() => { | |
| if (!abortControllerRef.current) { | |
| abortControllerRef.current = new AbortController() | |
| } | |
| return abortControllerRef.current | |
| }, []) | |
| React.useEffect(() => { |
Our goal, here, is threefold:
| import React from 'react'; | |
| // Source: https://github.com/emotion-js/emotion/blob/master/packages/styled-base/types/helper.d.ts | |
| type PropsOf< | |
| // eslint-disable-next-line @typescript-eslint/no-explicit-any | |
| E extends keyof JSX.IntrinsicElements | React.JSXElementConstructor<any> | |
| > = JSX.LibraryManagedAttributes<E, React.ComponentPropsWithRef<E>>; | |
| export interface BoxOwnProps<E extends React.ElementType = React.ElementType> { | |
| as?: E; |
| ex () | |
| { | |
| if [ -f $1 ] ; then | |
| case $1 in | |
| *.tar.bz2) tar xjf $1 ;; | |
| *.tar.gz) tar xzf $1 ;; | |
| *.bz2) bunzip2 $1 ;; | |
| *.rar) unrar x $1 ;; | |
| *.gz) gunzip $1 ;; | |
| *.tar) tar xf $1 ;; |
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
A modified version of Romain's gist.
See prior revisions for functionality closer to the original. This is now a simplification that aims only to provide prompts that would typically follow basic commands.
function! ExpandCommand(pattern) abort
let aliases =
\ { 'cn' : 'cnext'