brutal VS dom

Even in the noncommercial world, Hurd's gone precisely nowhere. RedoxOS is a toy and had a GUI within a year or so. Brutal got in within two. SerenityOS not only built a GUI but the beginnings of the first greenfield web browser to gain any semblance of modern standards support in the past several decades. Honestly, what's Hurd doing wrong to flounder so hard?

[0] https://github.com/redox-os/redox/releases/tag/0.0.3

[1] https://github.com/brutal-org/brutal/releases

[2] https://serenityos.org/happy/1st/

Really glad you're so enthusiastic about Haiku, but I gotta let you know that you are vastly overestimating its scope. Either that or you're vastly underestimating a browser's, it could go either way. Anyone can make their own OS. Even one with a GUI. Now there's a project that can withstand infinite amounts of personal experimentation. There's Brutal, there's Serenity...

https://skiftos.org https://brutal.smnx.sh https://serenityos.org

Working on it https://github.com/brutal-org/brutal/tree/main/sources/libs/...

For file organization, my advice is to shuffle stuff around until it feels great to you. But if you need an example you can check out our OS source tree https://github.com/brutal-org/brutal/tree/main/sources Also, you can use any other build system for OSDEV there are no reasons to limit yourself to make. Cmake, Bazel, gn, meason, etc does work pretty well for OSDEV

Almost ! I convert Stivale2 structures to Handover's one (a protocol from https://github.com/brutal-org/brutal )

in plain htmx, you can target an area that doesn't disrupt a playing video (e.g. the comments box appending to the comments) or you can use a morphing algorithm that disrupts the DOM less.

i have my own morphing algorithm (and a corresponding htmx plugin that allows you to use it) called idiomorph:

https://github.com/bigskysoftware/idiomorph/

i've also been working with the chrome team to get a feature added they are calling "atomic moves":

https://github.com/whatwg/dom/issues/1255

this would allow us to move elements around in the DOM without losing things like play state or focus or whatever

very excited for this last idea, I think it will be a huge boon for the web in general, not just for htmx

What I said in my previous comment is observably true. Try making a demo where it isn't.

> A DOM node is a living mutable thing, but the JavaScript object representing that node is not.

The JavaScript object is mutable. The first example in the article shows this.

> That is also why a node list is not an array.

Modern APIs on the web return platform arrays (eg JavaScript arrays). https://webidl.spec.whatwg.org/#js-sequence - here's where the WebIDL spec specifies how to convert a sequence to a JavaScript array.

I'm fully aware of NodeList. There's a reason the spec calls them "old-style" https://dom.spec.whatwg.org/#old-style-collections

> I can understand how this is confusing if you have never operated without a framework, but otherwise it’s really straightforward

Sighhhhhh. I've been a web developer for over 20 years, and spent a decade on the Chrome team working on web platform features. Most of my career has been on the low-level parts of the platform.

Could it be possible that people are disagreeing with you, not because they're stupid, but because you're in the wrong? Please try to be open minded. Try creating some demos that test your opinions.

Domenic Denicola (the man who ruined promises) probably will as well.

https://github.com/whatwg/dom/issues/67

I'm pretty sure it is, since I get "TypeError: nodes[i].parentNode.href is undefined" and "TypeError: $mainmenu.parent(...).get(...) is undefined" errors on both Pale Moon and LibreWolf. Which is part of Shadow/DOM, and originated from google (https://hacks.mozilla.org/2015/06/the-state-of-web-components/). Not sure when this particular thing was introduced, since it's a "living standard"/experimental feature (https://dom.spec.whatwg.org/).

JSX chose to align names to the DOM spec [0]. Same for htmlFor and friends.

[0] https://dom.spec.whatwg.org/#ref-for-dom-element-classname%E...

You can see why I say this here: https://dom.spec.whatwg.org

The product logos in this article's cover image include different languages and technologies some of which are still relevant for web development today: HTML, CSS, JavaScript / ES / TypeScript (and the DOM), SVG, PDF, PHP, SQL (mySQL, MariaDB), mongoDB, Node.js (the most successful server-side implementation of JavaScript so far).

Thanks for the shout-out! I think I mention this in the talk, but note that YMMV. I designed that benchmark as a kind of "worst-case scenario" where shadow DOM / scoped styles really show a benefit. Depending on your CSS rules, DOM size, and amount of thrashing, the perf benefit could be small to large.

Also, it's still possible to shoot yourself in the foot, especially if you have a large/complex stylesheet repeated across multiple shadow roots. (Not because of the repetition – that's optimized in browsers [1] – but rather because of the number of DOM nodes affected.)

That said, I still think the perf benefits of shadow DOM have been undersung. And Declarative Shadow DOM makes it way more useful.

[1]: https://github.com/whatwg/dom/issues/831#issuecomment-585489...

We luh-luh-luv you! They gestated and nurtured the spec. They fought over bike sheds! All for us!!