1. 6

    I feel like the one thing Google does that corps can’t ever do without is Calendar. After that, Docs.

    1. 2

      Second this. I tried divesting from Google last year. Email - easy. Search - easy. By far the most inconvenient one to try to move away from is Calendar. Too many useful collaborative features that require a google account.

      1. 3

        At work we use Nextcloud, which includes a calendar. Have you tried it?

        1. 1

          Ditto.

          My mail provider offers calendaring service but yeah - too many friends (and my wife!) use my GCal to collaborate.

        2. 1

          I run my own Nextcloud server, and the calendar works pretty well. I use caldav on my phone to sync it, and it syncs with my mac and linux laptops.

          1. 2

            That works great, for individuals.

            1. 1

              Individuals, families, small businesses, etc.

              They say Nextcloud is adding federation features, and I hope/assume this includes calendaring, so you can be invited to an event from someone else’s Nextcloud instance.

            2. 2

              Yes but again it’s its own little island.

              You can’t, unless I’m wrong (please tell me if I am!) have a friend invite you to an event on your NextCloud calendaring system from their Google Calendar.

              I mean I suppose maybe CalDAV / iCal would do some of this?

              1. 2

                iCal does the most essential part: getting an invitation from an email into your calendar. It doesn’t handle the RSVP side.

                1. 1

                  And now we’re back to convenience :)

                  There is exactly zero chance my wife would consent to having to muck about with iCal files in order to do what we need with calendaring.

          1. 2

            in 2019 they are going to have to move on quickly to the tools and techniques that will make them employable, if that is their aim.

            “If that is their aim”. It seems I almost forgot that years ago everyone seemed to be trying their hand at html and css. My mum who was an aircraft mechanic, then full time mother, maintained a website for her church. My blind step dad maintained a website for a blind association.

            I miss the days of “anyone can build a website with some html and css”, and I hope they’re not completely lost.

            1. 2

              git get sounds like https://github.com/motemen/ghq. I use this a lot and have my path as ~/src.

              1. 2

                Interesting! I was unaware of this when I made this script. Will check it out.

              1. 2

                ooh. A zero dependency Python script is certainly better than ghq, but I need it to expand bare user/proj into github URLs automatically :)

                1. 1

                  Very interested in how it can be improved. Can you give an example of what you mean?

                  1. 1

                    git get user/project

                    without typing https://github.com

                    1. 2

                      Zero dependency POSIX shell version: http://sprunge.us/WanJ6v uncomment line 14 for github default.

                      1. 1

                        This link has gone dead with:

                        This application is temporarily over its serving quota. Please try again later.

                      2. 1

                        Ah! Gotcha. I added an issue here: https://github.com/pietvanzoen/git-get/issues/5

                        Thanks for the suggestion.

                  1. 6

                    I originally posted this aware that anti TypeScript opinions were unpopular. But I wasn’t aware quite how much people dislike Eric Elliot.

                    It is a shame if Eric is misconstruing data to make an argument. But I think there are valid considerations in the article. Namely:

                    • There is an overhead to using typescript. Such as additional complexity to debug and dealing with @types libraries that not up to date.
                    • tooling exists that gives you much of the same developer experience in JavaScript
                    • hiring experienced typescript developers is hard (especially if you’re in a market with a developer shortage already)

                    I’ve enjoyed writing typescript in the past. But what I take from reading this is the reminder that a team should assess and be aware of the cost of implementing typescript.

                    1. 4

                      hiring experienced typescript developers is hard (especially if you’re in a market with a developer shortage already)

                      This is a weird concept to me, I wouldn’t really look to explicitly hire for somebody ‘experienced with Typescript’. I mean, I wouldn’t even think about it. Sure there are certain things which are trickier to apply types to but those are honestly usually pretty rare. If you’re handling hiring like that, you’re going to create your own developer shortage.

                      1. 2

                        There is an overhead to using typescript. Such as additional complexity to debug and dealing with @types libraries that not up to date.

                        The overhead is mostly in upfront setups costs, and these days it’s pretty minimal. It’s quite rare to find outdated type definitions - I think it’s happened once in the ~4 years I’ve been using TS. In terms of debugging, it’s (all-but) invisible these days.

                        tooling exists that gives you much of the same developer experience in JavaScript

                        Not in my experience. The tools can guess at what you mean when you try to refactor, but it really has nothing on what can be done using types. I’d hate to go through a web framework upgrade without the benefit of compilation errors.

                        hiring experienced typescript developers is hard (especially if you’re in a market with a developer shortage already)

                        Again, not in my experience. Hire a C# + JS dev and they’ll likely pick up typescript in a week and be highly productive in a month. TS itself doesn’t require any special knowledge and is easy to learn.

                        1. 2

                          How can there be valid considerations in the article if he is falsifying evidence? How can we take it that they’re valid? Do we take it on trust? Doesn’t his actively presenting false evidence erode your trust in his argument? If not, why not?

                          1. 2

                            It is a shame if Eric is misconstruing data to make an argument. But I think there are valid considerations in the article.

                            This is one of those cases where I realize my value system might not be universal for people. For me, “misconstruing data but valid considerations” is incompatible: intentionally warping data is deeply wrong, and making up sources is unforgivable.

                            1. 1

                              Unfortunately. I think this is pretty much the root cause of the current replication crisis we’re seeing in many of the sciences.

                              1. 1

                                I was having a conversation about software choices. Not moral value systems. I agree with you to be clear. That’s why the 3 points I came up with were all based on subjective elements of the article and not part of the contensious data. The points I choose were also generally known frictions with adopting typescript.

                                While I appreciate and agree with your passion for ethical writing, it really was not the conversion I was originally trying to have. Clearly in the future I will think twice before citing an Eric Elliot article.

                            1. 1

                              This is an excellent article that puts into words a feeling I’ve had about “front end” for a while. As the breadth of “front end” increases the term becomes about as useful at describing someone’s skill set as “full stack”.

                              1. 3

                                I heartily agree. I’m working on an application that has a GUI component and in the exploration phase I started to test the application logic by manually operating my GUI skeleton. Then I realized what I was doing and stopped work on the GUI and concentrated on the logic. This forced me to write tests for all the logic to determine if things were working. This in turn forced me to separate out the logic from the GUI which is a neater more maintainable design.

                                1. 3

                                  This one point I feel is missing in the article: tests (usually) encourage you to come up with a better design. If something is hard to test, look closer as it might be flawed in other ways too.

                                  1. 3

                                    Very true. That may become number 8. 😛

                                1. 4

                                  As a native English speaker this is an interesting insight into the added difficulty a non native speaker faces with English being the predominant language in programming. Something I’d (naively) not considered. It’s also intriguing to see point free programming as a method for just having fewer concepts to name.

                                  1. 4

                                    Great article. The “functional runtime” mentioned towards the end reminds me of Gary Bernhardt’s “functional core, imperitive shell” concept. He talks about it some in this talk: https://www.destroyallsoftware.com/talks/boundaries

                                    Gonna need to re-read a bit to get my head around the “actions as objects” idea, but good stuff overall.

                                    1. 5

                                      There is also a talk by @pushcx which explores a similar direction: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFpXKLSREQo I found it very interesting.

                                      1. 2

                                        To give credit where it’s due, Bernhardt’s Boundaries talk directly inspired the experimentation that became that talk.