naiyt
This solution is perfect for an application that's targeting privacy focused users. I often don't sign up for services these days because I don't care for the possibility that the maintainer of the site is just casually reading through my data.
Some great use cases could be journaling, note taking, a private wiki, etc. For note taking, I actually use Standard Notes (https://standardnotes.org/) precisely because of its end to end encryption.
For me the lack of password reset is a non issue (especially with modern password managers), something that I gladly trade for the peace of mind that some random developer with database access isn't reading through my private stuff. Obviously if you built something on top of this, you would need to properly educate your users on the tradeoff they're taking.
Pretty much this. Obviously needles and finger pricks are a bigger deal for some people, but most diabetics get used to it fairly quickly. The hard part is the constant mental drain of having to be your own pancreas. It's like you're constantly flying a plane where you have to manually maintain a certain altitude, because you'll crash and die if you fly too low or too high. It's exhausting.
> - Slow debug cycle due to increased compile time. If using TDD, it takes longer to run tests. The delays adds up.
I've not personally encountered any significant compiling overhead in comparison to a regular Babel ES6 transpile. Obviously depends on project size, but there are a lot of tweaks that you can do to speed it up. I've had good luck with ts-loader.
> - Sporadic source mapping issues/bugs which makes it hard to fix things (I had an issue with Mocha tests last week where it was always telling me that the issue was on line 1). I've worked with TypeScript on multiple projects across different companies but every single time, there has been source mapping or configuration issues of some kind.
Are you advocating ES6 instead of TypeScript? It seems like all modern JS hits a transpilation stage before it hits the browser these days, and I see the same source mapping issues whenever I use ES6/7 with Babel + Webpack.
> - Type definitions from DefinitelyTyped are often out of date or have missing properties/methods. It means that I can't use the latest version of a library.
Fair point, although I haven't run into this much myself.
> - Third party libraries are difficult to integrate into my project's code due to conflicts in type names or structural philosophy (e.g. they leverage types to impose constraints which are inconsistent with my project requirements).
Not sure I follow, do you have an example?
> - Doesn't guarantee type safety at runtime; e.g. If parsing an object from JSON at runtime; you still need to do type validation explicitly. The 'unknown' type helps but it's not clear that this whole flow of validating unknown data and then casting to a known type adds any value over regular schema validation done in plain JavaScript.
I mostly agree with this, which is why my strategy is just to do regular JS style schema validation where necessary, and then cast the object, rather than relying on `unknown`.
> - Compiler warnings make it hard to test code quickly using console.log(...); I'm more reliant on clunky debuggers which slows me down a lot and breaks my train of thought.
Not sure I fully follow. If your code compiles to the point where you can use the debugger, you should have been able to use a console.log as well, right?
> - Whenever I write any class/method, I have to spend a considerable amount of time and energy thinking about how to impose constraints on the user of the library/module instead of assuming that the user is an intelligent person who knows what they're doing.
If you're writing code used by others, you need to be clear about what your API expects and allows anyway, so why not be explicit about it, in a way that the compiler can enforce? An intelligent person makes mistakes, so why not see if you can give the computer the ability to catch some of those for you? And TypeScript still gives an intelligent user the ability to supersede your type restrictions if they absolutely need to.
> - It takes a lot of time think of good names for interfaces and they are renamed often as project requirements evolve. It's not always clear whether similar concepts should be different types or merged into one. It often comes down to what constraints you want to impose on users; This adds a whole layer of unnecessary mental work which could have been better spent on thinking about logic only.
I don't think coming up with good interface names is more difficult than good class or method names. And I'd argue that thinking about the constraints you want to impose on users is important for developing maintainable code -- whether you're doing type checking or not. And ultimately those constraints still have to exist in some manner, but without type checking the "constraint" will be the code breaking in some undefined way. By doing so you save yourself and others the mental overhead of trying to figure out what types you're dealing with at any point in your code base, or what types you're expected to pass into any given function. The initial overhead of thinking about your types pays off quickly.
> - Setting up TypeScript is a pain.
Anecdotal, but I've never had much of a problem with it (for React users, I believe you can get it for free in create-react-app now). And it's a one time setup cost anyway.
How does TypeScript make your "productivity drop enormously"? It has type inference, union types, looks just like ES6, and the typing is fully optional. The learning curve is quick if you've ever done static typing before (and not that hard even if you haven't).
And you get the productivity boost of not dealing with a lot of the regular JavaScript BS (no more "spooky undefined at a distance" because somebody forgot a 3rd parameter 4 methods down the callstack), as well as the ability to safely and automatically refactor, and the ability to immediately understand the API of other people's code or libraries (as long as it's typed, and most popular libraries have type definitions now).
In my experience the productivity benefits more than make up for the time you spend managing your types.
Personally I found Bloodborne to be even more hopeless. It's all based on a Lovecraftian view of the universe, where we're completely insignificant next to these higher order beings and concepts. There are also almost no happy endings for any of the NPCs, which contrasts with Dark Souls a bit. But again, that's a really good translation of Lovecraft into video game form!
I still have no idea what "intelligent edge" is supposed to mean.
- Full access to a large and mature ecosystem (one that Crystal doesn't quite have)
- The ability to gradually add typing to an existing Ruby codebase. No need to rewrite an entire application. Just gradually add types to new code and during refactors.
If I was starting a new project I would definitely be considering Crystal, but I still feel like something like this would be great. Typescript has been a godsend for my frontend development life, and I would love to have something like this for my backend Ruby development.
For me it's a Ruby like language with static typing. For my typical use cases I don't really need the extra performance, but those two things are enough to make me interested.
On the one hand this offers a lot of flexibility to do things the way you want, but also makes the learning curve a lot steeper. Honestly I would love for somebody to build a more full fledged framework around React that makes most of the decisions for you. A sort of "good for 90% of use cases" setup. (I guess create-react-app is sort of like that? You still have to make too many decisions, I think.)
Maybe it's better in Vue than it was in AngularJS, but this seems like a downside to me.
For me, Xiidra has been the only thing that's given me relief. The side effects have been fairly minimal (stinging for a minute or two, somewhat blurry vision for up to 20 minutes) and my life is mostly back to normal now. But the cost and lack of long term studies of the medication prevent me from recommending it unless you and your ophthalmologist have determined that there are no better options.
Here's everything that I tried, along with a comment about how well it worked:
- Switched from monthly contact lenses to dailies (Helped moderately, but at that point my eyes were getting worse fast enough for me to not notice a real difference
- Switched from contact lenses to glasses (Helped with comfort once I got used to glasses again, but not with dryness)
- Various OTC eye drops (Retaine MGD is still the best for my eyes, but overuse seems to make it worse)
- Eye doctor prescribed a 2 week steroid eye drop regimen. (So no difference)
- 10 minute warm compress on the eyes twice a day (This helped a lot when done consistently, but my eyes were still really bad throughout the day)
- Omega 3 supplements (Seemed to help a bit when I was consistent with the dosage)
- Various eye exercises (helps a lot, but I HAD to be consistent for multiple days before seeing results)
- Restasis (no benefit after 3 months)
- Xiidra - okay, so this has given me the MOST relief out of anything, even consistent eye exercises. My eyes actually feel normal again, and I saw results after just a couple weeks. Using a new medication kind of makes me nervous, and it's incredibly expensive (even with insurance), but I got to the point where I was willing to take the risk because I was getting desperate. Having severe dry eyes can negatively effect every waking moment.
I'm hoping that after a few more months on Xiidra my gland inflammation and tear composition will be in a good enough place that I'll be able to stop using the medication (which I'll be following up with my eye doctor about soon).
If you're just getting started with a career on the computer START TAKING CARE OF YOUR EYES NOW. Take frequent breaks and perform frequent eye exercises. Hopefully that will help prevent you from getting to the place I did, where it takes a significant amount of work and money to get back to having healthy vision.
"That's correct, my childhood pet's name was 1xs3^&szx!@!24"
It's really unfortunate that T1 and T2 diabetes have the same name, since they're completely different diseases that just happen to share some symptoms.