hasanhaja
Based on what? Happy to be wrong, but the quote in my reply was Apple's stance on the WebKit vs native iOS apps
> WebKit’s sandbox profile on iOS is orders of magnitude more stringent than the sandbox for native iOS apps.
[1] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/62277271d3bf7... [2] https://open-web-advocacy.org/apple-dma-review
I think it's more insulting to browser vendors that they have to throw away their browser engines to appease the monopolistic tendencies of one company.
Here's a good podcast episode with people from the Open Web Advocacy: https://changelog.com/jsparty/316
> I do, frankly, think that mobile Safari couldn't compete that well in an open market, just like desktop Firefox can't.
Couldn't compete isn't a justification to exploit platform control and ban competition. If Apple's so worried that Safari usage will fall off in favor of Chrome, then they can invest in Safari to make it a level playing field to keep their user base.
[1] https://infrequently.org/2025/11/performance-inequality-gap-... [2] https://crukorg.github.io/engineering-guidebook/docs/fronten...
Comparing AWS Lambda ARM64 vs. x86_64 Performance Across Runtimes in Late 2025
I ran into this issue and I'm not sure if it's just a me thing.
When sending the message from the Pong REPL, the following didn't work for me:
```erl {ping, 'ping@localhost'} ! {pong, self()}. ```
When I checked, the PID of `self()` is different to the PID of the registered `pong` process. I needed to change it to the following:
```erl {ping, 'ping@localhost'} ! {pong, whereis(pong)}. ```
This sends the correct PID to the Ping process and we have an infinite loop counting up.
It's only there for Pro users and people who want to support the project [1] and not normal use.
It's weird to call them out as indecent and deceitful for not actively marketing features that they really don't think you need. Even when you think you need it, they've actively encouraged people to analyze their problems to identify if it's a real need or a gap in hypermedia fundamentals knowledge.
Also, the top nav has a Pro page that has what you're looking for.
If you're implying they'll only pay when they've seen the value of the product, then the non-pro part of the framework is incredibly feature-rich and can easily do that.
If the core of the framework fits what you need, you could write those additional plugins yourself, rather than relying on the official "pro" ones. My understanding so far is the plugin architecture is intentionally designed for this usecase, so you aren't beholden to the official maintainers to add/tweak features for your specific usecase.
This makes the investment in the tool a lot safer, because you can always swap out pieces that don't fit your usecase, rather than start from scratch with a new framework.
In an enterprise setting, I don't believe the cost alone will be the factor that drives the decision. It'd be weighing up the value of the framework (e.g., UI framework/programming language agnostic stack, simpler architectures, delivery speed, performance, cost of using the framework on users) against the license cost.
> Getting enterprise adoption of a front end framework is almost impossible outside of React, let alone paying for a niche one, and the "contact us" approach is a non-starter.
Two questions on this:
1. Why do you think it's impossible to get org buy-in? 2. Why do those same orgs pick frameworks like Next.js, whose full benefits can only be realized with sophisticated and paid infrastructure?
Why isn't it a good API design?
> Snide vaguely dismissive remarks don't make such remarks true.
Agreed! I don't believe I was doing anything of the sort.
> Who's us?
People on this thread.
But again, the API design woes are subjective and I think it's perfectly fine to iterate on getting this to a nicer state.
"Wrong" to me suggests a gap in the understanding of fundamentals or of how things work. If the ideas of Datastar are fine to all of us, and our issues with it are ergnomics, then that can be a more focused discussion.
A couple of things on the Phoenix point:
- Requires the adoption of Elixir and Datastar is backend agnostic - Adopting Phoenix feels more suited to greenfield projects, but Datastar is suited for that and brownfield ones. - Websockets vs Server Sent Events has been really interesting and nuanced
[1] Time-stamped it for convenience: https://youtu.be/eMIB4Bkl08U?si=IfTslvZoGXVbou0w&t=1270
If you don't like the syntax, that's your preference. But I'm curious to hear why this is "wrong". Since that's a more objective thing, we can discuss it
https://data-star.dev/star_federation#nonprofit-organization
I've found it to be a fun way to build apps.
[1] GitHub: https://github.com/hasanhaja/tasks-app/ [2] Deployed site: https://tasks.hasanhaja.com/