Why can't npm maintainers just implement something similar?

Maybe at least have a default setting (or an option) that packages newer than X days are never automatically installed unless forced? That would at least give time for people to review and notice if the package has been compromised.

Also, there really needs to be a standard library or at least a central community approved library of safe packages for all standard stuff.

UI these days are flat everything and pretty boring.

Depending on the project, just write an SPA with an API server, or if it is a static website just prerender it and serve on Cloudflare. I don't get the appeal of all the complexity. If you need SSR for SEO, then SolidStart is a nice and simple solution.

Anyways, these days I moved from React to Solid.js so I know a bit how Solid works.

1. Solid.js also has "stores" and "createMutable" which allow deep tracking of objects and are also built on Proxy objects. Signals are great for single values, but Solid stores and createMutable are for more complex data.

2. Solid.js doesn't redraw entire components. (It's not like React.) It is fine grained and only updates the minimal exact DOM nodes required. This is why it is so fast and topped benchmarks when it first came out. https://dev.to/ryansolid/introducing-the-solidjs-ui-library-...

I found https://blog.theodo.com/2023/07/solidjs-beginner-virtual-dom... which might be a good intro explanation to it.

> Yeah, until you want to add some loops and conditionals in there. That's what regular programming languages are really good at. But it's a trade-off for sure.

Solid's and and tags are actually quite nice and very easy to parse visually.

Regarding the "gaslighting" comments, I kind of feel the same way as the grandparent. No offense meant and I support everyone coding new open source frameworks, but it does kind of feel like that.

I suggest doing a deep dive into Solid and even checking Ryan's blog https://dev.to/ryansolid or YouTube channel. There are a ton of concepts and good ideas to learn. He and tanstack are like at the forefront of web dev today.

(Telling myself: damn should of put that in my original comment cause of course someone's gonna comment that.)

SolidJS seems designed right so that it doesn't need so many major revisions and it feels quite stable.

It feels like an evolved React that is simpler to use.

Also its signals and stores can be used in normal .ts files, so it is easier to create re-usable "stores".

edit: BTW haven't been following Svelte but it's already version 5? I thought it was the newest framework.

Some people just can't accept not "knowing it all".

It is true there is a cultural aspect for games and they mention it, but if a regulation like this passes, then it is easy to imagine what other regulations would be pushed next.

Yes it could be great for consumers, but too many regulations means it becomes harder to start and do businesses and the advantages fall to the established players and in the end there are less options in the market(s) due to monopolies so the consumer is actually worse off.

In saying this, I'm not in favor of this regulation, actually the opposite - because imagine if this regulation passed for games and then passed for software in general next.

MMORPGs are software provided as a service, but this proposed regulation wants to make them playable even after the service provider discontinues service. If applied to software in general then that means all SaaS once it has any customers, then it has the obligation to make (and keep?) that software usable indefinitely.

And what if the reason you had to discontinue was out of your control? Eg. one of your critical service providers went out of business? Guess you'll have to recreate that service provider's whole service so your now open source software can still work on top of it before you can actually go out of business yourself.

It is just an absurd expectation for game companies to have to consider this. And in the end it just makes it harder for the smaller not-established game companies while giving the bigger companies another boost, concentrating their advantage.

And from the FAQ:

> If this practice is not stopped, it may be codified into law and spread to other products of more importance over time, such as agricultural equipment, educational products, medical devices, etc.

So there is a notion of using games as a step to 'stop' companies from being able to discontinue services.

If this passes for games, next would be software in general.

Next thing you know if you develop and sell any software you will have to make sure it is usable forever. Any MacOS updates or Windows updates (or iOS/Android updates) breaking a software or app you once sold to a few people and discontinued? You will have to fix it until you die or face penalties.

Do you have software with a cloud component sold under a lifetime license? Be prepared to maintain that service forever or release its complete source code if you don't. Additionally, you would need lifetime licenses for any critical proprietary third-party components your cloud service relies on or be prepared to cover their service fees indefinitely.

While this perspective may seem exaggerated, there is always a double-edged nature to such regulations. The sword slices both ways.

I think all games/software would then convert to a service/subscription based model, cause there would be no limit to future liabilities when selling any lifetime license.

Pay monthly to play the game. Pay monthly to use any software (including downloadable software and apps.) Pay monthly to use the OS.

EDIT: Actually thinking about it, it seems this proposal wants to cover mmorpgs which already are subscription based.

In that case if the same rules applies to software in general, then any software that is subscription based would also have to be usable indefinitely even if you sold just 1 month subscription and went out of business.

This kind of creates a bad incentive where users of software / players of games might want the company to die so they can use the software or play the game for free forever.

If this is the kind of attitude I would get from using Rust and having to be part of the Rust community, then I think I will pass.

Not actually flaming but quite condescending towards the article writer. Not even properly reading the article and coming to conclusions.

This is on HN which is generally more neutral towards Rust. I imagine in Rust circles these types of responses would come out a lot more.

I'm lucky that I am an independent developer so I can choose to use Solid JS in my projects.

React has so many gotchas and they keep changing the 'best practices' I can't believe people still stick with it.