Full Width 
Shortcuts 
Sign Up 
Log In 
Articles 
Reading List More from A Beautiful Site
It's been awhile since I wrote about FOUCE and I've since come up with an improved solution that I think is worth a post. This approach is similar to hiding the page content and then fading it in, but I've noticed it's far less distracting without the fade. It also adds a two second timeout to prevent network issues or latency from rendering an "empty" page. First, we'll add a class called reduce-fouce to the <html> element. <html class="reduce-fouce"> ... </html> Then we'll add this rule to the CSS. <style> html.reduce-fouce { opacity: 0; } </style> Finally, we'll wait until all the custom elements have loaded or two seconds have elapsed, whichever comes first, and we'll remove the class causing the content to show immediately. <script type="module"> await Promise.race([ // Load all custom elements Promise.allSettled([ customElements.whenDefined('my-button'), customElements.whenDefined('my-card'), customElements.whenDefined('my-rating') // ... ]), // Resolve after two seconds new Promise(resolve => setTimeout(resolve, 2000)) ]); // Remove the class, showing the page content document.documentElement.classList.remove('reduce-fouce'); </script> This approach seems to work especially well and won't end up "stranding" the user if network issues occur.
Once upon a midnight dreary, while I pondered, weak and weary, While I nodded, nearly napping, suddenly there came a tapping, "'Tis a design system," I muttered, "bringing order to the core— Ah, distinctly I remember, every button, every splendor, Each component, standardized, like a raven's watchful eyes, Unified in system's might, like patterns we restore— And each separate style injection, linked with careful introspection, 'Tis a design system, nothing more.
It’s disappointing that some of the most outspoken individuals against Web Components are framework maintainers. These individuals are, after all, in some of the best positions to provide valuable feedback. They have a lot of great ideas! Alas, there’s little incentive for them because standards evolve independently and don’t necessarily align with framework opinions. How could they? Opinions are one of the things that make frameworks unique. And therein lies the problem. If you’re convinced that your way is the best and only way, it’s natural to feel disenchanted when a decision is made that you don’t fully agree with. This is my open response to Ryan Carniato’s post from yesterday called “Web Components Are Not the Future.” WTF is a component anyway? # The word component is a loaded term, but I like to think of it in relation to interoperability. If I write a component in Framework A, I would like to be able to use it in Framework B, C, and D without having to rewrite it or include its entire framework. I don’t think many will disagree with that objective. We’re not there yet, but the road has been paved and instead of learning to drive on it, frameworks are building…different roads. Ryan states: If the sheer number of JavaScript frameworks is any indicator we are nowhere near reaching a consensus on how one should author components on the web. And even if we were a bit closer today we were nowhere near there a decade ago. The thing is, we don’t need to agree on how to write components, we just need to agree on the underlying implementation, then you can use classes, hooks, or whatever flavor you want to create them. Turns out, we have a very well-known, ubiquitous technology that we’ve chosen to do this with: HTML. But it also can have a negative effect. If too many assumptions are made it becomes harder to explore alternative space because everything gravitates around the establishment. What is more established than a web standard that can never change? If the concern is premature standardization, well, it’s a bit late for that. So let’s figure out how to get from where we are now to where we want to be. The solution isn’t to start over at the specification level, it’s to rethink how front end frameworks engage with current and emerging standards and work to improve them. Respectfully, it’s time to stop complaining, move on, and fix the things folks perceive as suboptimal. The definition of component # That said, we also need to realize that Web Components aren’t a 1:1 replacement for framework components. They’re tangentially related things, and I think a lot of confusion stems from this. We should really fix the definition of component. So the fundamental problem with Web Components is that they are built on Custom Elements. Elements !== Components. More specifically, Elements are a subset of Components. One could argue that every Element could be a Component but not all Components are Elements. To be fair, I’ve never really liked the term “Web Components” because it competes with the concept of framework components, but that’s what caught on and that's what most people are familiar with these days. Alas, there is a very important distinction here. Sure, a button and a text field can be components, but there are other types. For example, many frameworks support a concept of renderless components that exist in your code, but not in the final HTML. You can’t do that with Web Components, because every custom element results in an actual DOM element. (FWIW I don’t think this is a bad thing — but I digress…) As to why Web components don’t do all the things framework components do, that’s because they’re a lower level implementation of an interoperable element. They’re not trying to do everything framework components do. That’s what frameworks are for. It’s ok to be shiny # In fact, this is where frameworks excel. They let you go above and beyond what the platform can do on its own. I fully support this trial-and-error way of doing things. After all, it’s fun to explore new ideas and live on the bleeding edge. We got a lot of cool stuff from doing that. We got document.querySelector() from jQuery. CSS Custom Properties were inspired by Sass. Tagged template literals were inspired by JSX. Soon we’re getting signals from Preact. And from all the component-based frameworks that came before them, we got Web Components: custom HTML elements that can be authored in many different ways (because we know people like choices) and are fully interoperable (if frameworks and metaframeworks would continue to move towards the standard instead of protecting their own). Frameworks are a testbed for new ideas that may or may not work out. We all need to be OK with that. Even framework authors. Especially framework authors. More importantly, we all need to stop being salty when our way isn’t what makes it into the browser. There will always be a better way to do something, but none of us have the foresight to know what a perfect solution looks like right now. Hindsight is 20/20. As humans, we’re constantly striving to make things better. We’re really good at it, by the way. But we must have the discipline to reach various checkpoints to pause, reflect, and gather feedback before continuing. Even the cheapest cars on the road today will outperform the Model T in every way. I’m sure Ford could have made the original Model T way better if they had spent another decade working on it, but do you know made the next version even better than 10 more years? The feedback they got from actual users who bought them, sat in them, and drove them around on actual roads. Web Standards offer a promise of stability and we need to move forward to improve them together. Using one’s influence to rally users against the very platform you’ve built your success on is damaging to both the platform and the community. We need these incredible minds to be less divisive and more collaborative. The right direction # Imagine if we applied the same arguments against HTML early on. What if we never standardized it at all? Would the Web be a better place if every site required a specific browser? (Narrator: it wasn't.) Would it be better if every site was Flash or a Java applet? (Remember Silverlight? lol) Sure, there are often better alternatives for every use case, but we have to pick something that works for the majority, then we can iterate on it. Web Components are a huge step in the direction of standardization and we should all be excited about that. But the Web Component implementation isn’t compatible with existing frameworks, and therein lies an existential problem. Web Components are a threat to the peaceful, proprietary way of life for frameworks that have amassed millions of users — the majority of web developers. Because opinions vary so wildly, when a new standard emerges frameworks can’t often adapt to them without breaking changes. And breaking changes can be detrimental to a user base. Have you spotted the issue? You can’t possibly champion Web Standards when you’ve built a non-standard thing that will break if you align with the emerging standard. It’s easier to oppose the threat than to adapt to it. And of course Web Components don’t do everything a framework does. How can the platform possibly add all the features every framework added last week? That would be absolutely reckless. And no, the platform doesn’t move as fast as your framework and that’s sometimes painful. But it’s by design. This process is what gives us APIs that continue to work for decades. As users, we need to get over this hurdle and start thinking about how frameworks can adapt to current standards and how to evolve them as new ones emerge. Let’s identify shortcomings in the spec and work together to improve the ecosystem instead of arguing about who’s shit smells worse. Reinventing the wheel isn’t the answer. Lock-in isn’t the answer. This is why I believe that next generation of frameworks will converge on custom elements as an interoperable component model, enhance that model by sprinkling in awesome features of their own, and focus more on flavors (class-based, functional, signals, etc.) and higher level functionality. As for today's frameworks? How they adapt will determine how relevant they remain. Living dangerously # Ryan concludes: So in a sense there are nothing wrong with Web Components as they are only able to be what they are. It's the promise that they are something that they aren't which is so dangerous. The way their existence warps everything around them that puts the whole web at risk. It's a price everyone has to pay. So Web Components aren’t the specific vision you had for components. That's fine. But that's how it is. They're not Solid components. They’re not React components. They’re not Svelte components. They’re not Vue components. They’re standards-based Web Components that work in all of the above. And they could work even better in all of the above if all of the above were interested in advancing the platform instead of locking users in. I’m not a conspiracy theorist, but I find interesting the number of people who are and have been sponsored and/or hired by for-profit companies whose platforms rely heavily on said frameworks. Do you think it’s in their best interest to follow Web Standards if that means making their service less relevant and less lucrative? Of course not. If you’ve built an empire on top of something, there’s absolutely zero incentive to tear it down for the betterment of humanity. That’s not how capitalism works. It’s far more profitable to lock users in and keep them paying. But you know what…? Web Standards don't give a fuck about monetization. Longevity supersedes ingenuity # The last thing I’d like to talk about is this line here. Web Components possibly pose the biggest risk to the future of the web that I can see. Of course, this is from the perspective of a framework author, not from the people actually shipping and maintaining software built using these frameworks. And the people actually shipping software are the majority, but that’s not prestigious so they rarely get the high follower counts. The people actually shipping software are tired of framework churn. They're tired of shit they wrote last month being outdated already. They want stability. They want to know that the stuff they build today will work tomorrow. As history has proven, no framework can promise that. You know what framework I want to use? I want a framework that aligns with the platform, not one that replaces it. I want a framework that values incremental innovation over user lock-in. I want a framework that says it's OK to break things if it means making the Web a better place for everyone. Yes, that comes at a cost, but almost every good investment does, and I would argue that cost will be less expensive than learning a new framework and rebuilding buttons for the umpteenth time. The Web platform may not be perfect, but it continuously gets better. I don’t think frameworks are bad but, as a community, we need to recognize that a fundamental piece of the platform has changed and it's time to embrace the interoperable component model that Web Component APIs have given us…even if that means breaking things to get there. The component war is over.
Components are like little machines. You build them once. Use them whenever you need them. Every now and then you open them up to oil them or replace a part, then you send them back to work. And work, they do. Little component machines just chugging along so you never have to write them from scratch ever again. Adapted from this tweet.
More in programming
One of the first types we learn about is the boolean. It's pretty natural to use, because boolean logic underpins much of modern computing. And yet, it's one of the types we should probably be using a lot less of. In almost every single instance when you use a boolean, it should be something else. The trick is figuring out what "something else" is. Doing this is worth the effort. It tells you a lot about your system, and it will improve your design (even if you end up using a boolean). There are a few possible types that come up often, hiding as booleans. Let's take a look at each of these, as well as the case where using a boolean does make sense. This isn't exhaustive—[1]there are surely other types that can make sense, too. Datetimes A lot of boolean data is representing a temporal event having happened. For example, websites often have you confirm your email. This may be stored as a boolean column, is_confirmed, in the database. It makes a lot of sense. But, you're throwing away data: when the confirmation happened. You can instead store when the user confirmed their email in a nullable column. You can still get the same information by checking whether the column is null. But you also get richer data for other purposes. Maybe you find out down the road that there was a bug in your confirmation process. You can use these timestamps to check which users would be affected by that, based on when their confirmation was stored. This is the one I've seen discussed the most of all these. We run into it with almost every database we design, after all. You can detect it by asking if an action has to occur for the boolean to change values, and if values can only change one time. If you have both of these, then it really looks like it is a datetime being transformed into a boolean. Store the datetime! Enums Much of the remaining boolean data indicates either what type something is, or its status. Is a user an admin or not? Check the is_admin column! Did that job fail? Check the failed column! Is the user allowed to take this action? Return a boolean for that, yes or no! These usually make more sense as an enum. Consider the admin case: this is really a user role, and you should have an enum for it. If it's a boolean, you're going to eventually need more columns, and you'll keep adding on other statuses. Oh, we had users and admins, but now we also need guest users and we need super-admins. With an enum, you can add those easily. enum UserRole { User, Admin, Guest, SuperAdmin, } And then you can usually use your tooling to make sure that all the new cases are covered in your code. With a boolean, you have to add more booleans, and then you have to make sure you find all the places where the old booleans were used and make sure they handle these new cases, too. Enums help you avoid these bugs. Job status is one that's pretty clearly an enum as well. If you use booleans, you'll have is_failed, is_started, is_queued, and on and on. Or you could just have one single field, status, which is an enum with the various statuses. (Note, though, that you probably do want timestamp fields for each of these events—but you're still best having the status stored explicitly as well.) This begins to resemble a state machine once you store the status, and it means that you can make much cleaner code and analyze things along state transition lines. And it's not just for storing in a database, either. If you're checking a user's permissions, you often return a boolean for that. fn check_permissions(user: User) -> bool { false // no one is allowed to do anything i guess } In this case, true means the user can do it and false means they can't. Usually. I think. But you can really start to have doubts here, and with any boolean, because the application logic meaning of the value cannot be inferred from the type. Instead, this can be represented as an enum, even when there are just two choices. enum PermissionCheck { Allowed, NotPermitted(reason: String), } As a bonus, though, if you use an enum? You can end up with richer information, like returning a reason for a permission check failing. And you are safe for future expansions of the enum, just like with roles. You can detect when something should be an enum a proliferation of booleans which are mutually exclusive or depend on one another. You'll see multiple columns which are all changed at the same time. Or you'll see a boolean which is returned and used for a long time. It's important to use enums here to keep your program maintainable and understandable. Conditionals But when should we use a boolean? I've mainly run into one case where it makes sense: when you're (temporarily) storing the result of a conditional expression for evaluation. This is in some ways an optimization, either for the computer (reuse a variable[2]) or for the programmer (make it more comprehensible by giving a name to a big conditional) by storing an intermediate value. Here's a contrived example where using a boolean as an intermediate value. fn calculate_user_data(user: User, records: RecordStore) { // this would be some nice long conditional, // but I don't have one. So variables it is! let user_can_do_this: bool = (a && b) && (c || !d); if user_can_do_this && records.ready() { // do the thing } else if user_can_do_this && records.in_progress() { // do another thing } else { // and something else! } } But even here in this contrived example, some enums would make more sense. I'd keep the boolean, probably, simply to give a name to what we're calculating. But the rest of it should be a match on an enum! * * * Sure, not every boolean should go away. There's probably no single rule in software design that is always true. But, we should be paying a lot more attention to booleans. They're sneaky. They feel like they make sense for our data, but they make sense for our logic. The data is usually something different underneath. By storing a boolean as our data, we're coupling that data tightly to our application logic. Instead, we should remain critical and ask what data the boolean depends on, and should we maybe store that instead? It comes easier with practice. Really, all good design does. A little thinking up front saves you a lot of time in the long run. I know that using an em-dash is treated as a sign of using LLMs. LLMs are never used for my writing. I just really like em-dashes and have a dedicated key for them on one of my keyboard layers. ↩ This one is probably best left to the compiler. ↩
As I slowly but surely work towards the next release of my setcmd project for the Amiga (see the 68k branch for the gory details and my total noob-like C flailing around), I’ve made heavy use of documentation in the AmigaGuide format. Despite it’s age, it’s a great Amiga-native format and there’s a wealth of great information out there for things like the C API, as well as language guides and tutorials for tools like the Installer utility - and the AmigaGuide markup syntax itself. The only snag is, I had to have access to an Amiga (real or emulated), or install one of the various viewer programs on my laptops. Because like many, I spend a lot of time in a web browser and occasionally want to check something on my mobile phone, this is less than convenient. Fortunately, there’s a great AmigaGuideJS online viewer which renders AmigaGuide format documents using Javascript. I’ve started building up a collection of useful developer guides and other files in my own reference library so that I can access this documentation whenever I’m not at my Amiga or am coding in my “modern” dev environment. It’s really just for my own personal use, but I’ll be adding to it whenever I come across a useful piece of documentation so I hope it’s of some use to others as well! And on a related note, I now have a “unified” code-base so that SetCmd now builds and runs on 68k-based OS 3.x systems as well as OS 4.x PPC systems like my X5000. I need to: Tidy up my code and fix all the “TODO” stuff Update the Installer to run on OS 3.x systems Update the documentation Build a new package and upload to Aminet/OS4Depot Hopefully I’ll get that done in the next month or so. With the pressures of work and family life (and my other hobbies), progress has been a lot slower these last few years but I’m still really enjoying working on Amiga code and it’s great to have a fun personal project that’s there for me whenever I want to hack away at something for the sheer hell of it. I’ve learned a lot along the way and the AmigaOS is still an absolute joy to develop for. I even brought my X5000 to the most recent Kickstart Amiga User Group BBQ/meetup and had a fun day working on the code with fellow Amigans and enjoying some classic gaming & demos - there was also a MorphOS machine there, which I think will be my next target as the codebase is slowly becoming more portable. Just got to find some room in the “retro cave” now… This stuff is addictive :)
A little while back I heard about the White House launching their version of a Drudge Report style website called White House Wire. According to Axios, a White House official said the site’s purpose was to serve as “a place for supporters of the president’s agenda to get the real news all in one place”. So a link blog, if you will. As a self-professed connoisseur of websites and link blogs, this got me thinking: “I wonder what kind of links they’re considering as ‘real news’ and what they’re linking to?” So I decided to do quick analysis using Quadratic, a programmable spreadsheet where you can write code and return values to a 2d interface of rows and columns. I wrote some JavaScript to: Fetch the HTML page at whitehouse.gov/wire Parse it with cheerio Select all the external links on the page Return a list of links and their headline text In a few minutes I had a quick analysis of what kind of links were on the page: This immediately sparked my curiosity to know more about the meta information around the links, like: If you grouped all the links together, which sites get linked to the most? What kind of interesting data could you pull from the headlines they’re writing, like the most frequently used words? What if you did this analysis, but with snapshots of the website over time (rather than just the current moment)? So I got to building. Quadratic today doesn’t yet have the ability for your spreadsheet to run in the background on a schedule and append data. So I had to look elsewhere for a little extra functionality. My mind went to val.town which lets you write little scripts that can 1) run on a schedule (cron), 2) store information (blobs), and 3) retrieve stored information via their API. After a quick read of their docs, I figured out how to write a little script that’ll run once a day, scrape the site, and save the resulting HTML page in their key/value storage. From there, I was back to Quadratic writing code to talk to val.town’s API and retrieve my HTML, parse it, and turn it into good, structured data. There were some things I had to do, like: Fine-tune how I select all the editorial links on the page from the source HTML (I didn’t want, for example, to include external links to the White House’s social pages which appear on every page). This required a little finessing, but I eventually got a collection of links that corresponded to what I was seeing on the page. Parse the links and pull out the top-level domains so I could group links by domain occurrence. Create charts and graphs to visualize the structured data I had created. Selfish plug: Quadratic made this all super easy, as I could program in JavaScript and use third-party tools like tldts to do the analysis, all while visualizing my output on a 2d grid in real-time which made for a super fast feedback loop! Once I got all that done, I just had to sit back and wait for the HTML snapshots to begin accumulating! It’s been about a month and a half since I started this and I have about fifty days worth of data. The results? Here’s the top 10 domains that the White House Wire links to (by occurrence), from May 8 to June 24, 2025: youtube.com (133) foxnews.com (72) thepostmillennial.com (67) foxbusiness.com (66) breitbart.com (64) x.com (63) reuters.com (51) truthsocial.com (48) nypost.com (47) dailywire.com (36) From the links, here’s a word cloud of the most commonly recurring words in the link headlines: “trump” (343) “president” (145) “us” (134) “big” (131) “bill” (127) “beautiful” (113) “trumps” (92) “one” (72) “million” (57) “house” (56) The data and these graphs are all in my spreadsheet, so I can open it up whenever I want to see the latest data and re-run my script to pull the latest from val.town. In response to the new data that comes in, the spreadsheet automatically parses it, turn it into links, and updates the graphs. Cool! If you want to check out the spreadsheet — sorry! My API key for val.town is in it (“secrets management” is on the roadmap). But I created a duplicate where I inlined the data from the API (rather than the code which dynamically pulls it) which you can check out here at your convenience. Email · Mastodon · Bluesky
Consent morality is the idea that there are no higher values or virtues than allowing consenting adults to do whatever they please. As long as they're not hurting anyone, it's all good, and whoever might have a problem with that is by definition a bigot. This was the overriding morality I picked up as a child of the 90s. From TV, movies, music, and popular culture. Fly your freak! Whatever feels right is right! It doesn't seem like much has changed since then. What a moral dead end. I first heard the term consent morality as part of Louise Perry's critique of the sexual revolution. That in the context of hook-up culture, situationships, and falling birthrates, we have to wrestle with the fact that the sexual revolution — and it's insistence that, say, a sky-high body count mustn't be taboo — has led society to screwy dating market in the internet age that few people are actually happy with. But the application of consent morality that I actually find even more troubling is towards parenthood. As is widely acknowledged now, we're in a bit of a birthrate crisis all over the world. And I think consent morality can help explain part of it. I was reminded of this when I posted a cute video of a young girl so over-the-moon excited for her dad getting off work to argue that you'd be crazy to trade that for some nebulous concept of "personal freedom". Predictably, consent morality immediately appeared in the comments: Some people just don't want children and that's TOTALLY OKAY and you're actually bad for suggesting they should! No. It's the role of a well-functioning culture to guide people towards The Good Life. Not force, but guide. Nobody wants to be convinced by the morality police at the pointy end of a bayonet, but giving up on the whole idea of objective higher values and virtues is a nihilistic and cowardly alternative. Humans are deeply mimetic creatures. It's imperative that we celebrate what's good, true, and beautiful, such that these ideals become collective markers for morality. Such that they guide behavior. I don't think we've done a good job at doing that with parenthood in the last thirty-plus years. In fact, I'd argue we've done just about everything to undermine the cultural appeal of the simple yet divine satisfaction of child rearing (and by extension maligned the square family unit with mom, dad, and a few kids). Partly out of a coordinated campaign against the family unit as some sort of trad (possibly fascist!) identity marker in a long-waged culture war, but perhaps just as much out of the banal denigration of how boring and limiting it must be to carry such simple burdens as being a father or a mother in modern society. It's no wonder that if you incessantly focus on how expensive it is, how little sleep you get, how terrifying the responsibility is, and how much stress is involved with parenthood that it doesn't seem all that appealing! This is where Jordan Peterson does his best work. In advocating for the deeper meaning of embracing burden and responsibility. In diagnosing that much of our modern malaise does not come from carrying too much, but from carrying too little. That a myopic focus on personal freedom — the nights out, the "me time", the money saved — is a spiritual mirage: You think you want the paradise of nothing ever being asked of you, but it turns out to be the hell of nobody ever needing you. Whatever the cause, I think part of the cure is for our culture to reembrace the virtue and the value of parenthood without reservation. To stop centering the margins and their pathologies. To start centering the overwhelming middle where most people make for good parents, and will come to see that role as the most meaningful part they've played in their time on this planet. But this requires giving up on consent morality as the only way to find our path to The Good Life. It involves taking a moral stance that some ways of living are better than other ways of living for the broad many. That parenthood is good, that we need more children both for the literal survival of civilization, but also for the collective motivation to guard against the bad, the false, and the ugly. There's more to life than what you feel like doing in the moment. The worst thing in the world is not to have others ask more of you. Giving up on the total freedom of the unmoored life is a small price to pay for finding the deeper meaning in a tethered relationship with continuing a bloodline that's been drawn for hundreds of thousands of years before it came to you. You're never going to be "ready" before you take the leap. If you keep waiting, you'll wait until the window has closed, and all you see is regret. Summon a bit of bravery, don't overthink it, and do your part for the future of the world. It's 2.1 or bust, baby!
An interactive demo of bisection search and golden ratio search algorithms. There is also a motivation to learn them both. Spoiler alert! One converges better, and the other has a better computational cost.
