The comment you replied to made no statement about the effectiveness of the project. It's like saying that George Soros is engaged in trying to elect left-wing leadership; nobody denies that.

What a stupid platform. I can't believe it's still so popular.

What incentive is there for them to not do that? Laws? I'm asking sincerely, not rhetorically.

So, it's Mike Johnson for the House and John Thune for the Senate.

The hope is always that "this time will be different". Maybe these tools are so awesome that they'll become a de facto standard and, therefore, "boring". It's JavaScript, so I'm not holding my breath, though.

If you're an expert as a particular programming language, for example, you may have a good mental model for what optimizations the compiler and/or runtime are able to do, and the way you write code in that language may be influenced by that deep knowledge. You may have written so much code in that language that you know all of the corner cases and foot-guns, and how to deal with them--or better yet, how to avoid them in the first place. You may even develop new/uncommon patterns or idioms that other people end up adopting.

But, if that programming language totally changes its own semantics and compiler toolchain every few months, nobody would have time to build deep intuition and expertise like that.

I think that was the point.

Specifically, I'm not a "designer", but I regularly end up making/changing UIs (mobile apps, web apps/pages, etc). When it comes to design, it really matters who the target audience is.

If you're creating a UI for "mass market", you have to design to a lowest-common-denominator that balances what your average user expects, generally, from UI/UX, and the more you ask them to "invest", the worse you're going to do. On the other hand, if you're making a tool for a B2B (business-to-business) product, you have more freedom to set baseline expectations of what the end user needs to be able to do and understand. You can also expose more powerful options, etc. You can sometimes end up going in very different directions. Even error handling and logging can sometimes be handled differently, depending on the context.

There are basically two points to programming with immutable-first data. One, eliminate certain classes of data race concurrency bugs. Two, less mutable state in a given context makes it easier to reason about.

So, if you're inside a function scope and you aren't launching any concurrent operations from inside that function, you don't have to worry about benefit #1. If you're inside a function (and you're not reaching out for global mutable state), then the context you need to keep in your working memory is likely fairly small, so a few local mutable variables doesn't significantly harm "understandability" of the implementation (in most cases). So, you really don't have to worry about #2, either. Make your functions black boxes with solid "APIs" (type signatures), and let the inside do whatever it needs to make it work the best.

Just because premature optimization is the root of all evil, it doesn't mean we need to jump right to premature pessimization...

I'm still skeptical that this is the case with Postel's Law, but I do see that it's possible to read it that way. I guess I could always go do some research to prove it one way or the other, but... nah.

And yes, "Parse, don't validate." is one of my absolute favorite maxims (good word choice, by the way; I would've struggled on choosing a word for it here).

Hyrum's Law is pointing out that sometimes the new field is a breaking change in the liberal scenario as well, because if you used to just ignore the field before and now you don't, your client that was including it before will see a change in behavior now. At least by being strict, (not accepting empty arrays, extra fields, empty strings, incorrect types that can be coerced, etc), you know that expanding the domain of valid inputs won't conflict with some unexpected-but-previously-papered-over stuff that current clients are sending.

So, I think not crashing because of invalid input is probably too obvious to be a "law" bearing someone's name. IMO, it must be asserting that we should try our best to do what the user/client means so that they aren't frustrated by having to be perfect.

But, since when has PHP ever prioritized correctness or consistency over trivial convenience? (I know it's anti-cool these days to hate on PHP, but I work with PHP all the time and it's still a terrible language even in 2026)

It used to frustrate me that people didn't care about their own privacy, because I genuinely didn't want evil people to hurt them. But, it's even more angering that people don't have the common decency to consider whether their friends and family would want them sharing their phone numbers, email addresses, photos of them, etc.

Why would someone try to force me off of my browser (that has ad-blocking and tracker-blocking mitigations) and on to a locked-down app that may want permission to run in the background, display notifications, access my files or camera, etc?

Maybe it really is to "improve my experience"... yeah, right.