I'm sure this gets downvotes because AI. The post talks more about dotnet and webassembly though, and gains through it. Not about AI (beyond the marketing speak referencing the product itself).
How does JPlus handle compile time null checks against Java library interfaces? Does it consider them all nullable and to be handled as nullable?
If nullability information is a type metadata extension for compile-time checking, does that inevitably break on library interfaces when I create both library and consuming app with JPlus?
That's wild
😏
The plan is to eventually make it incremental, however that isn't yet implemented. It is however already pretty fast even without incremental linking.
Not stable yet, either:
The following is working with the caveat that there may be bugs:
It's new to me that it's NFC. I was under the impression I need to buy a reader device to make use of digital auth or signature stuff.
Actually, avoid using PNGs at all if you can.
👀
I prefer round[ed].
Think of it as a rounded square with a unique, pleasant shape.
I don't find them pleasant. I find them irritating.
Rounded square makes use of the space it reserves/square-fills. Squircles seem wasteful and confusing. They do not represent any common physical shapes, and waste/discard space they could use. They look like an old CRT.
When PRs begin with a headline and checklist the GitHub hover-preview becomes useless. When the PR description begins with the summation of the change, it is very useful.
Most of the time I see headlines and check lists in tickets I create or contributions I create PRs for, I feel stifled and like I have to produce something very inefficient or convoluted.
The worst I have seen is when, at work, I had to create bug tickets for a new system in a service desk to a third party, and they had a very excessive, guided, formalized submission form [for dumb users]. More than once, I wrote the exact same thing three times into three separate text boxes that required input. (Something like "describe what is wrong", "describe what happens", "describe how to reproduce".) Something that I could have described well, concise, fully and correctly in one or two sentences or paragraphs became an excessively spread, formalized mess. I'm certainly not your average end user, but man that annoyed me. And the response of "we found this necessary" was certainly not for my kind of users, maybe not even experience with IT personnel.
At work, I'm glad I have a small and close enough team where I can guide colleagues and new team members into good or at least decent practice.
Checklists can be a good thing, if processes can be formalized, can serve as guidance for the developer, and proof of consideration for the reviewer. At the same time, they can feel inappropriate and like noise in other cases.
I've been using horizontal line separators to separate description from test description and aside/scoping/wider context and considerations - maybe I will start adding headlines on those to be more explicit.
Invidious says video unavailable
I'm a bit confused, because MDN ::after says in the accessibility section:
Using an ::after pseudo-element to add content is discouraged, as it is not reliably accessible to screen readers.
which contradicts the article saying ::after content gets included as per spec. They conclude though with
While it’s good and certainly useful that we can now provide alt text for CSS generated content, I do not recommend using CSS to insert meaningful content into the page.
Not only will some of your screen reader users miss meaningful information when the alt text is not announced by their screen reader (looking at NVDA with Chrome 👀), but there are also other reasons why inserting meaningful content in CSS is not yet recommended…
so I assume it's a spec vs real world thing.
If you want a teaser what this is about, the / content syntax for screen read representation (to evade misrepresentative emoji translations, for example).
::after {
content: " \2197" / "Opens in a New Window" ;
}
They also talk about image alt text and ::after url.
A lot of them look (very) interesting. Now I have a bunch of tabs open to sift through.