I'm sure it's a context thing — but boy is it annoying.

The manifesto is me. The website is not — and I'd like to argue that's very non-ironic!

Here's the making of, linked at the bottom. https://no-ai-coauthors.dev/making-of.html

Here's a link from the bottom of the page. https://no-ai-coauthors.dev/making-of.html

This manifesto website includes a git commit-msg hook for your favorite hook manager, and a GitHub Action for preventing contributions containing them from landing in your project.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48651494

Points: 12

# Comments: 12

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48301644

Points: 2

# Comments: 0

If not, it sounds like one core issue is 'adding types to an existing untyped codebase is hard'. This checks out. :)

I understand 'functional' to be used as the direct contrast to 'procedural'! Is that not your understanding?

> So what is the actual innovation? It is more or less directly and visibly expressing the UI in code.

The 'visibly' part here doesn't really actually hold true, does it? Once you've componentized your https://developer.apple.com/library/archive/documentation/Us...>, it's probably not super visibly understandable.

The best definition i can think of for declarative UI frameworks is probably something closer to 'frameworks that optimize for your ability to make a pure function representing state'.

(After all `[[UIViewController alloc] init]` does indeed purely say 'you have view controller' — that's just not super granular!)

In this light, isn't SwiftUI just a setup more optimized in this direction

rel/to title: yes. (just say scroll position. fine.) But also I think this is pretty well understood! (No?)

- In declarative UI / FRP / whatever, you model your basic UI state through a pure mapping from your business logic 'model'.

- But (as in procedural programming) the UI has its own state — that's not necessarily part of your initial business/domain/model.

If you want to model it, you'll have to understand it, read it, and add it to you model. That can be annoying—especially if the APIs for getting or setting the state are bad.

This doesn't really sound like a fundamental flaw conceptually to me. It's just an API with defaults you don't have to deal with unless you need to.

- don't care what your color is? fine. system default for you.

- don't care what tab a link opens in? fine. user default.

- don't care how scroll position is managed? fine. system default.

- want to handle any of them? cool. you can.

It sounds like progressive disclosure of API complexity to me. Great.

Woah now, that's interesting! In my mind swift has had awesome support for functional programming paradigms since launch. I understand it to be leaning in about as far as it can given that it's built with first class support for Obj-c oriented frameworks.

What makes you feel like it's unapologetically imperative?

I.e. It’s nontrivial to be more wasteful than it would be to have multiple teams duplicating the same product.

(Strong disagree on your suggestion that the centralisation generally makes them less stable/secure, but granted on the tail risks.)

Strong +1 on the ensuing twisted incentives.

Common-ish arguments for monopolies, as applied to this situation:

* potentially the interoperability you indicate

* infrastructure investment leading to stability

* similarly: best in class client side software

* security / privacy guarantees (yes. I know, ironic, etc. but the fully distributed multi-company alternative is likely worse on these dimensions)

* single point of accountability for the state and law enforcement. (yes. not likely a HN concern. Still valuable to the state and potentially regular consumers.)

* general pro monopoly argument: fewer resources are wasted in competition, and so can be applied to product development and research. i.e. bell labs

IDK how I feel the scales tip in this case, but treating it as cut and dry feels a bit naive.

1. The acquisition was >1 year ago. (And there's some question of whether FB followed the correct process.)

2. The antitrust concern is in one major market with a ton of political and regulatory power — but still one of many. (Are there international trade agreements that inherently make this ruling impactful outside of the UK?)

3. The acquired company was very unlikely to find a better outcome, and would have been fairly likely to require costly restructuring for lack of this one.

I don't take this super seriously — because giphy feels replicable and, well, it's gifs. But curious if anyone else sees impactful competitive/strategic concerns, or if the matter at hand is really just political precedent setting.

Mostly I feel bad for giphy people. Hope they're nicely contractually protected.

okay

> There’s zero benefit to consumers, and a lot of harm.

There's a ton of potential societal benefit in centralization and/or monopoly in theory. There's also a ton of potential downside. What in particular makes this fall in the latter bucket?

Even if it is the former, updates & improvements take work. And they seem likely to be necessary here.