1. 21

    Possibly unpopular opinion but no. The word “drama” feels extremely dismissive. I really don’t like it when people dismiss anything as “drama”.

    If you don’t want to read a comment chain, don’t open the comments. It’s not like the whole comment chain is directly embedded into the front page.

    1. 16

      The entire point is to be dismissive, right?

      Drama submissions are categorized mainly by not being that important/actionable to daily stuff and more importantly by being “reality-free zones”.

      The Google thing, as a great example, is drama because:

      • Almost nobody who commented on it worked at GOOG and was in a position to really effect policy
      • Almost nobody argued the core points of the memo, preferring to tangent on a particular point or metadiscussion–many didn’t even read the original thing before spouting off on it.
      • Almost everybody refuses to change which side they are on in spite of evidence either way.

      Such things need to be aggressively purged from the community, because they’re toxic.

      1. 2

        Maybe toxic is a better tag name?

        1. 2

          That can easily be abused. Suddenly somone thinks React.js or C++ in general are toxic and marks everything as such.

      2. 1

        Absolutely, I was unfortunately stuck for words to suggest a less dismissive tag.

        A tag like ‘communities’ doesn’t feel specific enough to identify the precise kind of thread I’m referring to though, perhaps ‘political’?

        1. 4

          Honestly, “political”/“politics” is not a good word either.

          1. 2

            Indeed, you’re right. Honestly I’m starting to think that not tagging these at all and just letting Flag(Off-Topic) do its work might be the best solution.

      1. 11

        I feel like this article could be tightened up to present its argument more persuasively (tldr: tsx — React plus TypeScript — files are type-checked, whereas other common templating formats, even Angular 2’s, which professes a deep integration with TypeScript, are not), but I still thought it was great, particularly the animations.

        After experiencing some disappointment with Angular 2 on a previous project, I’ve been working with React plus TypeScript recently and it is worlds better having your “templates” participating in type-checking. It’s actually the thing you want, in my opinion.

        1. 7

          Thank you for the feedback. I added a tldr to the top.

          1. 4

            even Angular 2’s, which professes a deep integration with TypeScript, are not)

            I believe that this is outdated as of today (literally), thanks to TS 2.3’s language service plugin API which Angular now hooks into.

            1. 11

              No kidding! I didn’t realize. Well, that’s pretty interesting.

              In retrospect my original comment fell victim to the classic error: never assume that Angular 2 doesn’t contain a feature unless you have re-confirmed within the last 24 hours that it still does not contain that feature.

              1. 3

                Wow. I’d love to be able to update this article with some animations that show inline editor errors in Angular templates.

                edit: aaannd there’s the vscode plugin https://marketplace.visualstudio.com/items?itemName=Angular.ng-template

                1. 2

                  And here’s a full talk from ng-conf going over the language service: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ez3R0Gi4z5A