if the KO argument for your programming model is that the creator came up with a clever answer to a challenge, 3/
-
-
lots of users are going to encounter the same challenge but not be
#winning like#MotherFuckingDanAbramov. 4/45 replies 0 retweets 17 likes -
I don’t think dividing functions into functions is very clever, but yes, it is required for using Redux successfully.
2 replies 2 retweets 36 likes -
Replying to @dan_abramov @tomdale
your argument was, more or less, that Tom should have remembered about .filter(). It's probably not that Tom 1/
3 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
wasn't *aware* of .filter(), but that he didn't think of it here. The fact that you remembered it isn't an answer. 2/2
6 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
my argument is that tom shouldn't have been a dingus
1 reply 1 retweet 22 likes -
tbqh, the problem is that most of our design discussions in Ember end up with at least one "Y U NO REDUX".
3 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @wycats @thejameskyle
I bet
@tomdale was getting tired of it. Per@dan_abramov, the answer is that Redux is for people comfy with low-level.5 replies 2 retweets 5 likes -
This is fair. I don’t want to put Redux in ur Ember.
3 replies 2 retweets 12 likes -
Replying to @dan_abramov @wycats and
after all, we all know Observables are the right answer, right?
4 replies 0 retweets 14 likes
-
New conversation
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.