MSEdgeExplainers VS swc

The spec is a W3C CSS working group draft: https://drafts.csswg.org/css-anchor-position-1/

It looks like less of a Chrome thing and more of an Edge thing? The Intent to Prototype [1] links to an Edge explainer [2] with Microsoft authors. It doesn't look like anyone has asked Mozilla for a position yet [3] but I expect if they get positive signals from web developers (us!) that will be soon.

[1] https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/vsPdd...

[2] https://github.com/MicrosoftEdge/MSEdgeExplainers/blob/main/...

[3] https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues?q=anch...

Read the explainer here

You can learn more about Focus Mode in this Edge explainer document.

For a spec about a browser feature, "getting it" can mean a few different things.

1. Understanding the purpose of the feature ("why/when would I use this?")

2. Understanding how to implement the feature

3. Understanding how to use the feature

4. Understanding the feature's "corner cases" (surprising implications, cases where it doesn't do what you'd expect, etc.)

5. Understanding why the feature works the way it does (instead of some other way)

Most of the web specs really only explain how to implement a feature, and even then, they're not great at that, because they do such a poor job at explaining the purpose of the feature.

Assuming that you, like most of us, aren't working on implementing a browser, that means that web specs are mostly unhelpful to you. It's almost completely beyond the purpose of a spec to teach you how to use a feature, what its corner cases would be (which are often unknown at the time a spec was written), and why the specification says what it says.

This is an area where the web spec community has made some improvements in recent years. Nowadays, it's understood that new proposed specifications shouldn't just provide a specification, but also a separate "explainer" document, whose purpose is to communicate #1 (the purpose of the feature), and also persuade the other browser vendors to implement the feature. ("This will be really cool, and here's why…")

At a minimum, specs nowadays often include a non-normative "Motivation" section, as the CSS Nesting spec does. https://www.w3.org/TR/css-nesting-1/ I you'll find that you can "get" that spec much better than you can the CSS OM spec https://www.w3.org/TR/cssom-1/ which is old enough to buy alcohol and doesn't include a "Motivation" section.

You can often find explainer docs linked off of https://chromestatus.com/ e.g. https://github.com/MicrosoftEdge/MSEdgeExplainers/blob/main/... I think you'll find that explainers are 10000% better for learning features than specs are. (They typically even discuss #3, #4, and #5, as they typically discuss alternative rejected approaches.)

Transparent ads are enabled through ad providers joining the Transparent Ads Provider program. More info on the program and the requirements for providers here - https://github.com/MicrosoftEdge/MSEdgeExplainers/blob/main/TransparentAds/Program-Overview.md

Not necessarily for a Swift project, but your experience makes me wonder about the current web API for highlighting spans of text.

https://github.com/MicrosoftEdge/MSEdgeExplainers/blob/main/...

Complicated...

First, we switched the default compiler for new projects from Babel to SWC (Speedy Web Compiler). SWC is dramatically faster than Babel and requires zero configuration. We’ll continue to support Babel in any project currently using it.

SWC

As the reference explains “**SWC** (Speedy Web Compiler) is an extensible Rust-based platform that can be used for both compilation and bundling. Using SWC with Nest CLI is a great and simple way to significantly speed up your development process.”

This is specifically about breaking the myth that performing expensive self-contained operations (e.g, parsing GraphQL) in a native extension (C, Rust, etc.) is always faster than the interpreted language.

The JS ecosystem has the same problem, people think rewriting everything in Rust will be a magic fix. In practice, there's always the problem highlighted in the post (transitioning is expensive, causes optimization bailouts), as well as the cost of actually getting the results back into Node-land. This is why SWC abandoned the JS API for writing plugins - constantly bouncing back and forth while traversing AST nodes was even slower than Babel (e.g https://github.com/swc-project/swc/issues/1392#issuecomment-...)

Why Speedy Web Compiler ?

FTA is a TypeScript static analysis tool built on the speedy foundations of swc. FTA is fast; capable of analyzing more than 150 files per second on typical hardware, it offers a powerful addition to your code quality toolkit.

Very cool! I'm curious, is this intended for dev tooling?

For example, I could see this (or something similar) being useful as the engine for a typescript language server that would be faster than the standard one

But if it's not aimed at 1:1 with tsc, would it be intended more for something like swc[1]?

Or what would you expect people to use this for, besides just being a cool project to learn from?

[1] https://github.com/swc-project/swc

This is... good news, but I still cannot fathom using the default Typescript compiler for regular development. Seriously, leave the type-checking to your IDE and CICD chain, and switch to using tsx (https://www.npmjs.com/package/tsx) or swc (https://swc.rs/) and you will _immediately_ notice the difference in speed and productivity.