I don't know if "from scratch" is really a fair statement. React accepts HTML in the render function, so the only thing you'd need to do is modify the variables to match JSX's variable syntax, which is exactly what you'd have to do with Vue.
I think it's all pretty much the same deal. You might argue Vue's template syntax is closer to HTML than JSX is, but that doesn't really feel like the major issue when slowly refactoring a large application.
I'm not talking syntax. I'm saying that vue can be added on top of a third party DOM that may have server-rendered data embedded in it. You cannot hydrate React on top of dynamic HTML that was generated with JSP/PHP/.NET/etc unless you a) give up JSX (a big departure from idiomatic React) and b) interpolate server variables into your JS (a no-no in pretty much every non-SPA framework)
For example, take a rails app, then do the equivalent of $('#foo').toggle() based on some condition. In React, AFAIK you can't unless React knows what the markup being toggled is somehow. Vue can do it without knowing anything about the markup inside, and more importantly, the code will look idiomatic.
> and more importantly, the code will look idiomatic.
That's the kicker.
Whether a thing is possible or not is a far cry from whether it's a good idea. And when you consider what someone who opens up the code 5-7 years later without any frame of reference to start from will think (which can just as well include the original author if the original author has moved on to other things), familiar syntax goes a long way.
I think you misunderstood the point you were replying to. The idea is that you can’t really have a discussion about what it enables or how it’s used unless you already understand the technical details. And that shows as a lot of the comments/blog posts about this topic are using underlying technical assumptions that are entirely incorrect.
The criticism the original post has of WebBundles is fundamentally technical. All of their privacy and anti-adblocker claims stem from the idea that the bundles have special URL randomization powers that the current one-resource-per-request model can't replicate.
If that technical basis is incorrect, the whole thing just collapses. There's nothing left. Not allowing disproving the technical basis of these kinds of posts would mean that we have to just accept conspiracy theories at face value. That does not seem like a healthy outcome.
(Or to put it another way: you wanted to discuss "how this technology will be used". But how can we possibly have that discussion without agreeing on "what the techology can do" first?)
I'm honesty curious what crime this would be. If I rent time on someone else's server, and they look at what I'm doing on that server, what illegal thing has happened?
AWS terms do not assign their customers any rights to any physical computer. And the AWS customer agreement gives Amazon the authority to access your data for certain purposes.
I'm not sure I've ever heard of anyone prosecuted under the CFAA for accessing a computer that they physically own and physically control. AWS is a service, not a computer rental.
> We will not access or use Your Content except as necessary to maintain or provide the Service Offerings, or as necessary to comply with the law or a binding order of a governmental body.
The CFAA uses wording like "exceeds authorized access", which Amazon would absolutely be guilty of if they went into your database to spy on your product listings.
If they could go after Aaron Swartz for using authorized access in an unauthorized way, it seems likely it could be applied here.
"One reason we could charge the price we did for the service is that we were treating the data we had access to as an investment. Thus the data we accessed was done so to ensure the service could be maintained."
Would a judge accept that argument? From me? No. From the lawyers Amazon can afford? I wouldn't be comfortable betting either way.
A reminder that the legal system is designed to serve the wealthy, and few are wealthier than Amazon. It's not absolute, but the little guy isn't going to walk away with Bezo's fortune in damages.
> In practice, any ordinary computer has come under the jurisdiction of the law, including cellphones, due to the interstate nature of most Internet communication.
If I buy my spouse a phone, and secretly bug it, I'm still violating wiretap laws, even if it's technically mine.
If I'm renting an apartment, my landlord can't install a camera in the bathroom, even if they're the owner of the building.
Ownership doesn't change the fact that the law says "exceeds authorized access". Amazon agrees to only access the computer I'm renting from them in very specific scenarios. If they violate that, it looks like a pretty clear CFAA violation.
Huh, WTF?! Your FBI used to railroad random kiddies for messing around with poorly programmed dynamic pages and now you’re arguing there’s nothing wrong if a hosting provider trespasses and mines your private property?!
The rules the FBI/DoJ applies to kids on irc are not the same rules the FBI/DoJ applies to multibilliondollar infrastructure companies and/or trusted military defense contractors (Amazon is both).
Equal protection or application of computer crime law (perhaps, any law) in the USA is a fiction. It would be practically illegal to invent and run a web spider today, for instance, if they didn’t already exist as a concept. (France recently decided this was true for news link aggregation; Google must pay the newspapers for reproducing their headlines. I’m glad hosted RSS readers aren’t outlawed so far, but under these sorts of restrictive legal interpretations you could see how they might be. Google doing AMP, of course, gets a free pass.)
If you don’t believe me about the web spider thing, try making a complete download of Twitter for the purpose of making a tweet search index and see if you get to continue owning your house. (My theory is that Clearview is allowed to do it for Instagram because they’re using the database to provide services to law enforcement/military, so those groups want it to continue to exist free of prosecution.)
Bummer that actively collaborating with violent types like pigs and military seems to be the only way to avoid jail if you want to build large novel data systems with interesting public datasets today. This sort of freedom to experiment with new/neat algorithms over published documents got us Google; today these same companies will get you raided if you dare download/index their data. (Facebook’s idea famously started out scraping public yearbook photos. Try scraping Facebook now.)
Amazon owns the computer and grants you limited rights to use it, in exchange for the money you pay them. It's basically the opposite of a script kiddie hacking into someone else's web server.
Now, indiscriminate access to your content might violate whatever commitments Amazon made to you in their terms of service; I have not read them for a long time and can't remember what the language is specifically. But that would not be a matter for the FBI.
Assuming that the information would be behind at least a password entrance that a user had setup, Amazon breaking through that would be considered illegal unless they had a court order or something. They can peer into metadata that your machine creates but I think looking at private information on a server that they lease out would be illegal. Maybe I'm just hopeful?
Just because it's easy to fork in the UI, doesn't mean it's easy to get people to switch. Some people are actually concerned about the community as a whole, rather than their own projects.
And when maintainers respond to a significant amount of work involved in a PR for a bug with a note that they aren't interested because it's "boring" then they can be critiqued for being a jerk, because they decided to be a jerk.
If the maintainer had said, "Hey, I don't have the time to review/test/verify this PR so I'm closing it for now," the backlash probably wouldn't have been quite so severe.
Literally everything you mentioned isn't a loophole, it's tax fraud. Tax loopholes are what they do within a single jurisdiction to avoid taxes. What you're suggesting is transferring money from one jurisdiction to another, which can't be done tax-free.
On example under UK law is if you work abroad for a year and deemed non UK tax resident then you could receive income tax free during that period. The K2 scheme that Jimmy Carr took part in got a lot of coverage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K2_(tax_scheme)
Google shouldn't be restricted to a subset of the available technology because a niche browser isn't updating to available technology. Yes, a side-effect of this is that the blind community using Lynx can't use Google. While unfortunate, it's also a tiny, tiny, TINY community.
If you want to be upset, be upset with Lynx for falling behind. Or don't be upset and switch to JAWS, BRLTTY, Orca, etc. But the idea that anyone is supposed to support every possible browser is just silly.
That was the point of this entire thread. That MS doesn't care about Linux Desktop, so it's no longer a threat. The browser is the new threat, so being buddies with Linux is fine.
There's no secret plan here. Priorities have changed since 2002...
I think it's all pretty much the same deal. You might argue Vue's template syntax is closer to HTML than JSX is, but that doesn't really feel like the major issue when slowly refactoring a large application.