Documents that experience little change don't need classes because their structure is reliable.

Documents that change often have unreliable structures, and will require frequent updates to the CSS rules to match structure changes. Using classes insulates the CSS from the document structure, mitigating the need to update CSS as the document evolves.

It also depend your development strategy. If using Vue components and writing the CSS in the same file as a dedicated, small-scoped components, it's practical to update the CSS references alongside the document changes. But when there's distance between the HTML and the CSS, or there are components in use who's structures may change unpredictably (such as from 3rd party libraries), classes provide a safer reference.

There's no need to have an ideology of using classes or not using classes. The practical approach is to assess the nature of your work, the rate of change of the documents, and to adopt practices built around those assessments.

Remote: Yes, open to Hybrid in NYC

Willing to relocate: Possibly closer to NYC

Technologies: Ruby, Ruby on Rails, VueJS, React, TypeScript, Git, Postgres, ElasaticSearch, Heroku, AWS, Jira, OAuth

LinkedIn/Résumé: www.linkedin.com/in/yaniv-savir

Email: yaniv@yanivsavir.com

Seasoned software engineer with 11 years of web development and a proven success record using Ruby on Rails, Vue.js, React, and other frameworks. 10 years in startups, as small as 7 employees. Experienced mentor and coach to up-and-coming engineers, and champion of collaboration and efficient communication.

My ambitions are to build products I can be proud of. Software isn't an end, it's a means to an end, and the goal is hit our targets and win customers leveraging software. If you're looking for a level headed engineer who prioritizes a healthy and respectful work environment, a strong communication culture, and a deep understanding of the problems we're facing, reach out and say hi.

I am also open to work with technologies not listed above.

> 1. I see that the event interface specifies detail with `id` and `value` fields. What is the reason for using this? The underlying event already has a target, which will have the id and the value fields anyway. Are the widget's in this system so different that they have different id fields to the DOM elements?

This is something I rarely use in Vue anymore. I think back in the day, when Angular first emerged and pushed these sort of frameworks, there was a philosophy towards making components embed in code as if they were HTML native elements, and not needing to write JS around the event. If I remember correctly, providing a value field isn't asking it for the value of the event. It's specifying which value in memory should be set to the output of the event... But my memory is dodgy on that. It's confusing and I rarely see it used these days, but maybe that's reflective on the projects I've worked on.

> 2. There does not appear to be a field in the emitted event for the event sub-name (other than the custom name in the event structure itself). What if a component needs to emit something other than a "click" event? Ordinarily we'd get the event name from the event itself, so the handler knows whether it is being called on "focus", "click" "activate", etc. This information is lost with a custom event.

Can you expand on the usecase here? Ordinarily, at least in Vue, there's no need to know the name of the event currently being triggered. The component emits a "change" event (or whatever you call it) and the parent component, when setting up the child component, will specify some sort of 'on-change' attribute that listens for the 'change' event and says which function should be evoked as the callback to it. So basically, instead of having to write `document.getElementById('foo').on('change', respondToFoo)`, you simply write `on-change='respondtoFoo'` directly on the element in the HTML.

It's not the world's biggest win, but it does reduce the amount of code our eyes having sift through in reading the JS, and attaches the event details directly to the element(s) they relate to, which I've found to be more readable.

> 3. I'm still confused why you can't emit DOM elements; I mean, if you said "can't do two-way data binding" or something along the similar lines, it'd (maybe) make sense, but your response makes me think that you have not even considered it. I feel, maybe wrongly, that this library is both unnecessarily crippled and over-engineered - it targets spaghetti-as-a-pattern React, but not the hierarchical DOM?

You can, at least in Vue, but it's working against the grain. There's two reasons why:

1. Separation of presentation and state. These frameworks like to keep the HTML/DOM as simple presentation tools, and store logic and data separately. So when triggering events, we want to be emitting the important data as data, and not be concerned with the presentational layer from which that data may have originated.

2. Reusability of components. Emiting dom elements creates a more tightly coupled environment where there are a lot of expectations of the object being emitted (and little assurance as to what that object contains). By only exposing data and leaving the DOM element behind, it's easier for invoking components to use that data without having to hold expectations of the data structures being passed through.

The 19th and 20th centuries saw a huge shift in communication. We went from snail mail to telegrams to radio to phones to television to internet on desktops to internet on every person wherever they are. Every 20-30 years some new tech made it easier, cheaper, and faster to get your message to an intended recipient. Each of these was a huge social shift in terms of interpersonal relationships, commerce, and diminishing cycle times, and we've grown to expect these booms and pivots.

But there isn't much of where to go past "can immediately send a message to anyone anywhere." It's effectively an endstate. We can no longer take existing communication services and innovate on them by merely offering that service using the new revolutionary tech. By tech sectors are still trying to recreate the past economic booms by pushing technologies that aren't as revolutionary or aren't as promising and hyping them up to get people thinking they're the next stage of the communication technology cycle.

I think when they first started, they tried the HBO strategy of putting big money into big shows that try to win over broad audiences. But over time shifted to focusing on low budget shows that appeal to specific, smaller audiences. Which makes sense, if your goal isn't to have 70% of the total market as paying users but rather 90% of the market as paying users.

> Calling in the guard is not overreach when a city is demanding it through inaction.

Is the city calling for protection, though? There's a big difference between police departments fabricating data and a need for intervention, whether through taking control of the city police or bringing in the national guard. What's the actual situation? Why is the Trump administration militarizing the city instead of running statistics to get actual crime numbers?

5) One person with a copper mine and a soldering gun.