gabemart

It's using preact, the react.js alternative

I've tested on a later iOS but not 10.2. I'll have a look later today - it's possible I'm missing a polyfill. All you should need to do for it to work is to enter something in the main text input and hit "search".

It's supposed to show that the combination of the keyword and the suggested word is alliterative

Thank you! I've found myself doing it manually too, which is where the drive for this came from. I think I would use it even if someone else had made it, if that makes sense

>However, for root components of a directory, use index.jsx as the filename and use the directory name as the component name

I used to do this, but I find it really confusing having dozens of files all called "index.jsx". I eventually moved to './ComponentName/ComponentName.jsx' in my personal projects. It's a bit more verbose, but I find it makes everything else do to with navigating and finding files easier.

>> Exchanging a single word for another may totally alter the effect of a passage

> I think that describes code perfectly.

I wasn't very clear here: what I meant was that exchanging a single word even for its closest synonym will always change the effect of a passage to some degree, because the intrinsic aesthetic qualities of the word inevitably alter the effect of the word.

This isn't true for code, where refactoring a line of code might change how readable that line is, while conceivably having an identical effect when the line is interpreted, compiled or executed.

The author consistently compares code language style to literature language style, but I don't think it's a helpful comparison at all.

Literature operates by an intractably complex interaction between the words written on the page and the mind of the reader. Exchanging a single word for another may totally alter the effect of a passage, based on factors like the meaning of the word, the associations the word has for each reader, and the aesthetic appearance and sound of the word.

Moreover, we have no objective way of measuring the effect of literature. We don't have a test that can measure how much more empathetic I become after reading a novel, or how much more I understand the human experience.

Computer code typically has measurable outcomes. While "readability" may still be a relatively subjective measure, we can at least say "these two versions of this function are equivalent" if the outcome is the same - the array is sorted correctly, the transaction amount is calculated correctly, the graph is rendered with the same pixels.

This means that editing computer code is nothing at all like editing literature. The cliff-notes version of Macbeth can never produce the same effect in the mind of the reader as reading Macbeth -- but a function that is subjectively easier to read can be shown objectively to produce the same effect as the original function.

>you’re cutting it down for it’s screenplay being inspired by a fairy tale

That wasn't my reading of the parent at all.

Snow White the animated film wouldn't have been made if copyright was perpetually inherited and some distant Grimm relative refused to give Disney permission to make the film. This is relevant to your original point - that "I find complaining about someone’s artistic endeavors not being free to be absurd in it’s own way." You may find it absurd, but if it were not so, a work you seem to admire might never have been produced.

There is a cultural component to art. It draws from the culture and gives back to the culture. Long copyright terms - and I find current copyright terms very long - prevent future artists from drawing on the culture to produce new, transformative works.

Disney was able to draw on cultural material from the prior 100 years to make Snow White. But if the current copyright-extension-cycle continues, it seems plausible that Disney films - and all works created in the same period - may never fall into the public domain in the USA, and future artists will not be able to enjoy the same free use of cultural source material as Disney itself has done.

It's a shame that there isn't a common word in English to distinguish between positive-expected-value gambling and negative-expected-value gambling. They are fundamentally different pursuits.