Rails bindings for Opal(github.com) |
Rails bindings for Opal(github.com) |
I also found that quite a few of the libraries in the Opal ecosystem (like the opal-browser library that wraps a bunch of important native web features) are fragile and under-documented.
That said, Opal worked far better than I actually expected. I built a simple demo with it a few months ago and was pleasantly surprised by many aspects of the experience. There's a third-party React wrapper called React.rb that is quite impressive.
I wrote about my Opal demo app here: https://www.rethinkdb.com/blog/ruby-opal/
And here are the slides from a talk I gave about full-stack Ruby development: https://speakerdeck.com/segphault/realtime-web-apps-with-ret...
It's only 59.0 KB, see http://cdn.opalrb.org/opal/current/opal.min.js
https://twitter.com/pmarreck/status/650430959951593472
That was a live survey done during the session. The long yellow bar, in case it's hard to read, represented Ruby.
It's not that hard to see why: https://speakerdeck.com/mosic/elixir-at-evercam?slide=6
Despite what many seem to think, there is no "universally agreed" morals and views. So if you want to oust people you disagree with, don't be surprised when others oust you.
Or better yet, we'd all be better off if we all just learn to work peaceably with people we disagree with.
Tibor Fischer, The Hungarian Tiger
$window = Native(`window`)
puts $window[:location][:href] # => http://localhost/
puts $window.document.querySelector('title').innerText # => "Test page"
He's promoting Opal on that same Twitter account, though. A parallel: It's like saying he can bully someone outside of class, and that as long as he sits nice and quiet in class, the school shouldn't do anything about it.
Quite frankly, I think the Internet got to his head.
> Despite what many seem to think, there is no "universally agreed" morals and views. So if you want to oust people you disagree with, don't be surprised when others oust you.
True, but his statement was a soft-core version of hate speech.
> Or better yet, we'd all be better off if we all just learn to work peaceably with people we disagree with.
He didn't simply disagree, though. He's being outright offensive about it: "not accepting reality is the problem here," and "anyway it's months that in Italy school after school sneaks genderism lessons in without parents consent. Not cool," yes okay, let's not educate people, because that's well cool, innit blad.
School bullies are effective because their victims can't simply choose to not interact with them.
That's not the case here. Unless you're an actual contributor and the offensive behavior crosses over.
But realistically, this mob was never going to contribute anything anyways. The truth of most OSS projects (IME) is that they're driven by a handful of people at most. Sacrificing one of those over empty threats of nonexistent meaningful contributions is the wrong move 100% of the time.
So? It's his personal twitter account. He can do what he wants with it. He can say the Surface Book is great, or Opal is great, or Opal sucks. That doesn't make anything he says there into an official endorsement or opinion of the Opal project.
> A parallel: It's like saying he can bully someone outside of class, and that as long as he sits nice and quiet in class, the school shouldn't do anything about it.
The difference is that bullying is actually against rules. Expressing your views on something controversial like this is perfectly allowed due to freedom of speech.
> True, but his statement was a soft-core version of hate speech.
For one specific definition of hate-speech, sure. But not one that's universally agreed upon. In other words, that's like, your opinion, man.
I'm not sure that's a fair explanation. You can do any of these things in the implementation language of a web app. But splitting them out into external applications has other advantages.
Such as?
This seems like the most sane, intuitive, and universally reasonable definition of tolerance.
Using this definition in the case of this Opal controversy:
- the developer wasn't being intolerant because he didn't demand anything of trans people, he only expressed an opinion;
- but the person who opened the issue was being intolerant by demanding the developer step down.
The way I see these projects--if I get involved with them--is that it's like a virtual workplace, and everyone else working on it and participates in discussions or otherwise is pretty much a coworker.
If anyone feels this strongly about a certain group (like Elia), they will find "devil's advocate" (for a lack of better expression) reasons to disagree with them simply because they don't like them, or otherwise try to diminish the person in various forms to deter them from contributing. The worst part is that they might not even do it on purpose or even ralise it, so they'd be innocent in their self-perception. Not to mention, that some of the other contributors who've been acquainted with him would likely go to his defence (as is the case with meh[1]). Shit like this has been happening all the time; saying that it does not would be ignorant.
[1]: To a certain extent I also agree with meh, that there shouldn't be any politics/religion/general-bullshit topics within a software project, however Elia's Twitter profile managed to do exactly that. If he's going to have hate speech (call it what you want, but that is hate speech) and talk shit on his Twitter, he shouldn't promote his involvement in a respectable project, because this will happen. Elia is a shitty fucking person and he's put a stain on the project (but, hey, that's just my little, worthless opinion).
why on earth do you feel that you're an authority on how people _will_ behave? don't judge everyone else by your awfully low standards of professionalism, almost everyone i've ever worked with has been capable of working with people with which they have disagreements, without their differences of opinions causing issues.
grow up.
I am not an authority on how people will behave; it was simply a prognosis. I am sorry, if I somehow implied otherwise.
> don't judge everyone else by your awfully low standards of professionalism
Generally, if someone has horrible personal antics, it's very likely they'll carry those into other aspects of their life, even GitHub or work. We're only human.
> almost everyone i've ever worked with has been capable of working with people with which they have disagreements, without their differences of opinions causing issues.
Well, consider yourself lucky, then. Not everyone's had the benefit of such experiences. I myself haven't had horribly bad ones either. Although, I know people to whom it happened and how it affected their general emotional well-being; it was horrible watching them slowly deteriorate because they were in such a position.
> grow up.
Eventually, I might.