Exactly, we also have to think about support and maintenance when building and shipping products. It's always nice to play with new things to keep the learning fresh and see what people are up to. I started with php and .NET Framework ASP and in the early-mid 2010's when the reactive JS frameworks started coming around I just never found my jive with them and just started working at C#/.NET shops and am using Blazor Server now. For my domain of web application development the .NET web application ecosystem works great. Looking at the dagger.js docs and examples found myself thinking, this is more Java(SCRIPT) development. It's going to inherit the same issues as JavaScript (weak typing, no runtime reflection, no binary build output, locked into vendor interpreters with mixed feature support), and that's not mentioning all the oddities with the way object prototypes are implemented and interact with each other. I think the ambition and result of the project are amiable. The author did good work, but it's good work on a thing we need less of in my opinion.
Really appreciate you taking the time to look through the docs and write such a thoughtful comment. You’re right — JavaScript carries a lot of quirks and limitations that aren’t going away, and if you’re building full-scale business apps in the .NET ecosystem, Blazor is a very natural fit.
dagger.js isn’t trying to compete with that class of frameworks. The goal is much narrower: keep a build-free, HTML-first option around for cases where shipping something lightweight, inspectable, and easy to embed is more important than squeezing out type safety or runtime guarantees.
I completely agree that we don’t need everybody moving deeper into JS just for the sake of it. But I do think there’s value in keeping a spectrum of tools alive — from strongly-typed/.NET style systems to small runtime-only JS libraries — so developers can pick the right trade-off for their domain.
Thanks again for the honest feedback; it helps clarify where this approach makes sense (and where it doesn’t).
I think they're another tool in the toolbox not a new workshop. You have to build a good strategy around LLM usage when developing software. I think people are naturally noticing that and adapting.
I've had my Rotring 600 mechanical pencil for 10 years and I might need to add the ballpoint variant soon. I see some people mentioning that the new Rotrings aren't as good, which is a shame.
Not just the technical aspect here. I read through the page and nothing of any measurable importance was stated. What problems did this solve? What benefits does this bring to users? I guess I was expecting more from Google. The initial Material design system made some good points and addressed some issues for UI design. This just seems unfocused.
> We can finally just take a photo of a textbook problem that has no answer reference and no discussion about it and prompt an LLM to help us understand what's missing in our understanding of the problem, if our solution is plausible and how we could verify it.
I would take that advice with caution. LLM's are not oracles of absolute truth. They often hallucinate and omit important pieces of information.
Like any powerful tool, it can be dangerous in the unskilled hands.
I have two kids in grade school and middle school and I see why we have a STEM gap. I have to constantly correct the learning at home in math. Also, I think it's fair to assume that in Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and China the school kids are actually put on an academic grindset unlike here where there is such little academic rigor or discipline being enforced by the school it makes sense why the k-12 education numbers are as bad as they are in the USA.
It might be worth getting up in front of the kids in middle school + and saying "Hey you're in competition at a global scale here. You're going to have to work your butts off to stay relevant."
I don't think it will boost the fertility rate in any significant way. I think the only way to really make a dent in low fertility rates is to incentivize mothers to stay at home and men to work full-time at least for the first five years of a child's life. I know people disagree with this, but it's worth considering if the declining birth rates are a major concern for the State.
A better policy would be to incentivize any parent to stay home for the first few years. Restricting it to mothers would only reduce the appeal of the policy and result in fewer takers, so why default to a more restrictive approach?
I'm curious if you have tried taking care of a young child 24/7, it is exhausting work. Some mothers are able to do it, but I find it really helps to be able to alternate between childcare and work, to give me a break.
I do think that remote work is great for mothers though, as it makes pumping/nursing more doable, whether we are working or not.
Perhaps the government can provide more subsidies for quality childcare.
