|
Thanks for the info on SelectMenu I will check it out. 
|
|
|
|
|
I would suggest if you are liking React - make use of:
TypeScript - it's Javascript with strong typing and makes Javasript so much better to work with.
Redux - well worth doing the main Redux tutorial first and consider using it as it makes handling state much easier.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
You are right about TypeScript. It would be a lot nicer if the type I store and deserialize were known by the language itself.
|
|
|
|
|
Need a recommendation from you.
Am planning to write a 3D game in JavaScript, a small hobby project, which uses Three.js library. Is it better written in ReactJS (which I have to still learn), or in plain Vanilla JS? What would you recommend?
|
|
|
|
|
If you're basically using HTML5 CANVAS which you probably are, then I would most likely go with vanilla JS.
React basically gives you a way to manipulate the HTML DOM that is fast and easily updateable.
But if you're not using much DOM because your game runs in the Canvas then you really won't get much out of React anyways.
Also, if you are going to have a Canvas area and then DOM elements surrounding it you can even add React later to manipulate those DOM elements so you won't have to begin with React anyways and it will be easy to later incorporate React.
That's actually one of the really nice things of the React framework.
Hope this helps. Good luck!
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks a lot.
My app will have one big screen-wide canvas (except for a small controls area). I will go with plain Vanilla JS to start with.
|
|
|
|
|
raddevus wrote: What if I added 10,000 choices to a drop list
Myself I would tag that as a bad UX design.
As a back end developer who was requested to populate it I would refuse to do it without paging. Since I know that if there are 10,000 now then there are going to be 100,000 next year. And when that blows up I can't point to the UI as the problem.
|
|
|
|
|
I've been using this DOS/Windows sh*t for 40 years. When did Type start supporting wildcards?
C:\>Type somefile*
somefile1.txt
contentcontentcontent
contentcontentcontent
contentcontentcontent
somefile2.txt
contentcontentcontent
contentcontentcontent
contentcontentcontent
somefile3.txt
contentcontentcontent
contentcontentcontent
contentcontentcontent
...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not exactly right: I tried in Windows 98 and doesn't work 
In W2k it works however. Don't have a NT installation to check.
Mircea
|
|
|
|
|
You still use Win98?????
If it's not broken, fix it until it is.
Everything makes sense in someone's mind.
Ya can't fix stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
Not exactly: I have VMs with all (ok, almost all) MS OS-es and the "forever" answer made me chuckle and test it on Win98 and Win2k 
Mircea
|
|
|
|
|
I don't recall it ever not working. But I have no way to test it. I have a DOS 6 floppy somewhere...
It's possible that I'm just thinking of OpenVMS, and assuming that DOS did it as well.
I'm sure I've done things like TYPE *.txt > combined.txt to make one big file.
|
|
|
|
|
I liked working on VMS and DCL. That's the environment my first programming job was in.
Scott
|
|
|
|
|
Mine too. Most of my education and the first ten years of my so-called career.
|
|
|
|
|
My education was mainframe but my first six years of programming was on PDP's, MicroVAX, etc. Unfortunately it was mostly programming in DIBOL, lol.
|
|
|
|
|
That's interesting. I don't recall ever trying to do that on purpose.
"They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers! Can I get an amen?"
|
|
|
|
|
Using an a asterisk (wildcard) on the command line has always generated a list of files matching the mask. And the list is passed to the command for processing. I've never used it (AFAIR) for 'type' but there is no good reason why not.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, different DOS commands have different ideas about how a parameter should be specified.
DIR is pretty lenient, FIND is pretty restrictive, TYPE may be in between. The point being that the command language interpreter is not the only arbiter of what constitutes a "correct" statement.
|
|
|
|
|
Exactly so, but my point was about what cmd does when it parses something like "foo*" on the command line itself.
|
|
|
|
|
Normally, we get the Weird features, but this is a forum for 'Weird and Wonderful', so I thought I'd let you know about a good (probably excessive to call 'Wonderful') thing I found out.
I was trying to rename a file in Windows Explorer (on Windows 10). I had accidentally selected two files (instead of just the one I wanted) so it named them 'Whatever (1)' and 'Whatever (2)'. I had no idea which extra file had been renamed, so I tried ^Z (Undo). Both files were unrenamed back to their original names (totally unrelated to each other). I had not expected that to work.
|
|
|
|
|
Yup, I discovered that a few years ago by accident too. Never actually needed the feature though.
|
|
|
|
|
I discovered that ages ago, and assumed everyone used it on a regular basis.
|
|
|
|
|
You're right!
I regularly undo File Explorer action at the frenetic pace of easily at least 1 per year! 
|
|
|
|
|
I didn't know it was enabled for the explorer but ctr+z has become such an ingrained muscle memory for me that whenever I do a mistake, regardless of the software I'm using, I reflexively attempt to undo.
While not always it does work more often than one might expect 
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
