Ditto control flow. It’s tempting to think of repeat bars, DC al fines, codas etc hierarchical structures when in fact they are imperative GOTOs and always have been.
Ahh, so that's what I've internally called "The Sharpiro Effect" really is. Though it's still a bigger shame that a philosophy professor would need to resort to this compared to a newpaper cartoonist.
Arguably the feedback via the cursor change is feedback to help you learn, like the icons that appear in the close / minimise / zoom, or stickers on the keys of a musical instrument. You pretty quickly learn which one is which, or you can't use them effectively. At some point you'd hope that common actions become muscle memory.
So if it was something that was learned whilst using the previous version, and worked, I'd argue it wasn't 'erratic'.
> is not a TS innovation, nor only available in TS
> since I avoid TS, I cannot use ES6 and ES7, and my vanilla JavaScript doesn't run in all browsers
Where was that claim made? I don't see it in any Typescript docs, or in the book.
You seem to be saying that the TS docs say that these features are unique. They obviously aren't, the documentation is clearly not saying they are, and no reasonable person would say they were.
Transpiling to another platform is a multiplying benefit when combined with other benefits though.
For example: Clojure and Kotlin both target the JVM. The language design of each brings certain benefits. These benefits are clearly more useful if they have a wide deployment base in the form of the JVM.
> Where was that claim made? I don't see it in any Typescript docs, or in the book.
In the article, you know, linked in this submission, which my original comment quoted verbatim. Again:
> > Some of the benefits of TypeScript:
> > Access to ES6 and ES7 features
I'm saying that these are not "benefits of TypeScript" but benefits of doing transpiling in general with a tool that can "downcast" features like that, which is in no way exclusive to TypeScript nor even began with TypeScript, but AFAIK with Browserify.
When I talk about "benefits of language X" I try to keep it to things that are actually about the language, not particular implementation details also broadly available and used by others, because I feel like it'd be misleading.
Ok. I think you're misunderstanding that word as it was used. It's not the way I, and other responders, think the author intended it. They did not say 'exclusive benefit'.
A benefit of living in a house is that you don't get wet when it rains. If you didn't live in a house, you might get wet when it rained. But there are other things you could also do to not get wet, such as living in a tent.
It would not be reasonable to say "that's not a benefit of living in a house, because if I lived in a tent, or wore a rain-coat, I would not get wet".
The benefit of "staying dry" belongs to both "a house" and the superclass of "a sheltering structure".
If you defined benefits only on single dimensions, and only allowed them to belonging to level of abstraction at which they are exclusive, then you could argue that no language or technology has any benefit whatesover.
I think most people would think of "benefits of X" as an aggregation of individual specific benefits which may also belong to other aggregations.
I disagree. I generally don't get too upset by UI changes - having been programming since before Windows I've seen many of them - but LG is a loser.
I upgraded my mac to Tahoe and I don't like any change to the UI that I have noticed.
I upgraded my phone the other day, thinking it was just an update to whatever it already had, and ended up with LG on there and it is a disaster. I enabled the 'more opaque' feature and it did almost nothing.
LG is an awful experiment IMO. I'd put it at worse than Vista (which I skipped) and Gnome 3 which didn't bother me because I don't expect anything from linux desktops. I also skipped Windows 8 so not sure about the ranking there. But I'd say it's that level of disaster.
From a company that spent decades harping on about taste, usability, human interface guidelines etc, it’s a train wreck. If Microsoft did it you’d just shrug your shoulders and carry on with life because good taste and usability was never a core promise.
Question for people who have installed Tahoe. Of the regions in the article, which bring window focus / key window? Is it area clipped to the round rect? Or is it similarly weird?
If there was a background window in that area outside the corner, would it receive the click event?
> Of the regions in the article, which bring window focus
Just did a quick test in a VM, and it seems all of them. I.e. if you could resize the window, clicking that space (even if empty) brings it into focus. But then I also tested on Sequoia and the same happens.
It seems then that basically everything remained the same except for the visual presentation of the corner.
We recently had a significant test of this. Boris Johnson asked the late Queen to prorogue (shut down) parliament in order to prevent debate on the Brexit negotiations between the UK and the European Union.
In theory he was asking permission from the Queen. But in practice, everyone knew that the Queen was powerless to reject his request. Even for something as plainly anti-democratic.
The Supreme Court eventually ruled that the prorogation was not lawful.
Lots of people were hoping that the Queen would stand up for the people. It was a complicated moment when she didn't!
This kind of stuff is fascinating because it's the state interacting with itself. The Queen was powerless to reject his request, he being the leader of the government who governed in her name, whose prorogation was overturned by judges she appointed. She ultimately did not need to act because she had an army of people who acted on her behalf. This is not to say that every misuse of power is always caught, but rather that the Monarch gets to maintain a facade of impartiality because all the partiality is being done by their institutions instead.
> The proposed Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill emphasised the non-justiciability of the revived prerogative powers, prevented courts from making certain rulings in relation to a Government's power to dissolve Parliament. It received royal assent over two years later, on 24 March 2022.
As some have said before, it effectively means in future the Supreme Court can't undo or interfere with prorogation like what Boris Johnson did in 2019. The Labour party have said they won't cancel this law, so Kier Starmer can now do same as Boris and courts can't stop him.
reply