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.
I've been struggling with the idea of reflecting attributes in custom elements and when it's appropriate. I think I've identified a gap in the platform, but I'm not sure exactly how we should fill it. I'll explain with an example. Let's say I want to make a simple badge component with primary, secondary, and tertiary variants. <my-badge variant="primary">foo</my-badge> <my-badge variant="secondary">bar</my-badge> <my-badge variant="tertiary">baz</my-badge> This is a simple component, but one that demonstrates the problem well. I want to style the badge based on the variant property, but sprouting attributes (which occurs as a result of reflecting a property back to an attribute) is largely considered a bad practice. A lot of web component libraries do it out of necessary to facilitate styling — including Shoelace — but is there a better way? The problem # I need to style the badge without relying on reflected attributes. This means I can't use :host([variant="..."]) because the attribute may or may not be set by the user. For example, if the component is rendered in a framework that sets properties instead of attributes, or if the property is set or changed programmatically, the attribute will be out of sync and my styles will be broken. So how can I style the badge based its variants without reflection? Let's assume we have the following internals, which is all we really need for the badge. <my-badge> #shadowRoot <slot></slot> </my-badge> What can we do about it? # I can't add classes to the slot, because :host(:has(.slot-class)) won't match. I can't set a data attribute on the host element, because that's the same as reflection and might cause issues with SSR and DOM morphing libraries. I could add a wrapper element around the slot and apply classes to it, but I'd prefer not to bloat the internals with additional elements. With a wrapper, users would have to use ::part(wrapper) to target it. Without the wrapper, they can set background, border, and other CSS properties directly on the host element which is more desirable. I could add custom states for each variant, but this gets messy for non-Boolean values and feels like an abuse of the API. Filling the gap # I'm not sure what the best solution is or could be, but one thing that comes to mind is a way to provide some kind of cross-root version of :has that works with :host. Something akin to: :host(:has-in-shadow-root(.some-selector)) { /* maybe one day… */ } If you have any thoughts on this one, hit me up on Twitter.
More in programming
Email is your most important online account, so keep it clean.
Kubernetes is not exactly the most fun piece of technology around. Learning it isn’t easy, and learning the surrounding ecosystem is even harder. Even those who have managed to tame it are still afraid of getting paged by an ETCD cluster corruption, a Kubelet certificate expiration, or the DNS breaking down (and somehow, it’s always the DNS). Samuel Sianipar If you’re like me, the thought of making your own orchestrator has crossed your mind a few times. The result would, of course, be a magical piece of technology that is both simple to learn and wouldn’t break down every weekend. Sadly, the task seems daunting. Kubernetes is a multi-million lines of code project which has been worked on for more than a decade. The good thing is someone wrote a book that can serve as a good starting point to explore the idea of building our own container orchestrator. This book is named “Build an Orchestrator in Go”, written by Tim Boring, published by Manning. The tasks The basic unit of our container orchestrator is called a “task”. A task represents a single container. It contains configuration data, like the container’s name, image and exposed ports. Most importantly, it indicates the container state, and so acts as a state machine. The state of a task can be Pending, Scheduled, Running, Completed or Failed. Each task will need to interact with a container runtime, through a client. In the book, we use Docker (aka Moby). The client will get its configuration from the task and then proceed to pull the image, create the container and start it. When it is time to finish the task, it will stop the container and remove it. The workers Above the task, we have workers. Each machine in the cluster runs a worker. Workers expose an API through which they receive commands. Those commands are added to a queue to be processed asynchronously. When the queue gets processed, the worker will start or stop tasks using the container client. In addition to exposing the ability to start and stop tasks, the worker must be able to list all the tasks running on it. This demands keeping a task database in the worker’s memory and updating it every time a task change’s state. The worker also needs to be able to provide information about its resources, like the available CPU and memory. The book suggests reading the /proc Linux file system using goprocinfo, but since I use a Mac, I used gopsutil. The manager On top of our cluster of workers, we have the manager. The manager also exposes an API, which allows us to start, stop, and list tasks on the cluster. Every time we want to create a new task, the manager will call a scheduler component. The scheduler has to list the workers that can accept more tasks, assign them a score by suitability and return the best one. When this is done, the manager will send the work to be done using the worker’s API. In the book, the author also suggests that the manager component should keep track of every tasks state by performing regular health checks. Health checks typically consist of querying an HTTP endpoint (i.e. /ready) and checking if it returns 200. In case a health check fails, the manager asks the worker to restart the task. I’m not sure if I agree with this idea. This could lead to the manager and worker having differing opinions about a task state. It will also cause scaling issues: the manager workload will have to grow linearly as we add tasks, and not just when we add workers. As far as I know, in Kubernetes, Kubelet (the equivalent of the worker here) is responsible for performing health checks. The CLI The last part of the project is to create a CLI to make sure our new orchestrator can be used without having to resort to firing up curl. The CLI needs to implement the following features: start a worker start a manager run a task in the cluster stop a task get the task status get the worker node status Using cobra makes this part fairly straightforward. It lets you create very modern feeling command-line apps, with properly formatted help commands and easy argument parsing. Once this is done, we almost have a fully functional orchestrator. We just need to add authentication. And maybe some kind of DaemonSet implementation would be nice. And a way to handle mounting volumes…
Unexamined life is not worth living said Socrates. I don’t know about that but to become a better, faster, more productive programmer it pays to examine what makes you un-productive. Fixing bugs is one of those un-productive activities. You have to fix them but it would be even better if you didn’t write them in the first place. Therefore it’s good to reflect after fixing a bug. Why did the bug happen? Could I have done something to not write the bug in the first place? If I did write the bug, could I do something to diagnose or fix it faster? This seems like a great idea that I wasn’t doing. Until now. Here’s a random selection of bugs I found and fixed in SumatraPDF, with some reflections. SumatraPDF is a C++ win32 Windows app. It’s a small, fast, open-source, multi-format PDF/eBook/Comic Book reader. To keep the app small and fast I generally avoid using other people’s code. As a result most code is mine and most bugs are mine. Let’s reflect on those bugs. TabWidth doesn’t work A user reported that TabWidth advanced setting doesn’t work in 3.5.2 but worked in 3.4.6. I looked at the code and indeed: the setting was not used anywhere. The fix was to use it. Why did the bug happen? It was a refactoring. I heavily refactored tabs control. Somehow during the rewrite I forgot to use the advanced setting when creating the new tabs control, even though I did write the code to support it in the control. I guess you could call it sloppiness. How could I not write the bug? I could review the changes more carefully. There’s no-one else working on this project so there’s no one else to do additional code reviews. I typically do a code review by myself with webdiff but let’s face it: reviewing changes right after writing them is the worst possible time. I’m biased to think that the code I just wrote is correct and I’m often mentally exhausted. Maybe I should adopt a process when I review changes made yesterday with fresh, un-tired eyes? How could I detect the bug earlier?. 3.5.2 release happened over a year ago. Could I have found it sooner? I knew I was refactoring tabs code. I knew I have a setting for changing the look of tabs. If I connected the dots at the time, I could have tested if the setting still works. I don’t make releases too often. I could do more testing before each release and at the very least verify all advanced settings work as expected. The real problem In retrospect, I shouldn’t have implemented that feature at all. I like Sumatra’s customizability and I think it’s non-trivial contributor to it’s popularity but it took over a year for someone to notice and report that particular bug. It’s clear it’s not a frequently used feature. I implemented it because someone asked and it was easy. I should have said no to that particular request. Fix printing crash by correctly ref-counting engine Bugs can crash your program. Users rarely report crashes even though I did put effort into making it easy. When I a crash happens I have a crash handler that saves the diagnostic info to a file and I show a message box asking users to report the crash and with a press of a button I launch a notepad with diagnostic info and a browser with a page describing how to submit that as a GitHub issue. The other button is to ignore my pleas for help. Most users overwhelmingly choose to ignore. I know that because I also have crash reporting system that sends me a crash report. I get thousands of crash reports for every crash reported by the user. Therefore I’m convinced that the single most impactful thing for making software that doesn’t crash is to have a crash reporting system, look at the crashes and fix them. This is not a perfect system because all I have is a call stack of crashed thread, info about the computer and very limited logs. Nevertheless, sometimes all it takes is a look at the crash call stack and inspection of the code. I saw a crash in printing code which I fixed after some code inspection. The clue was that I was accessing a seemingly destroyed instance of Engine. That was easy to diagnose because I just refactored the code to add ref-counting to Engine so it was easy to connect the dots. I’m not a fan of ref-counting. It’s easy to mess up ref-counting (add too many refs, which leads to memory leaks or too many releases which leads to premature destruction). I’ve seen codebases where developers were crazy in love with ref-counting: every little thing, even objects with obvious lifetimes. In contrast,, that was the first ref-counted object in over 100k loc of SumatraPDF code. It was necessary in this case because I would potentially hand off the object to a printing thread so its lifetime could outlast the lifetime of the window for which it was created. How could I not write the bug? It’s another case of sloppiness but I don’t feel bad. I think the bug existed there before the refactoring and this is the hard part about programming: complex interactions between distant, in space and time, parts of the program. Again, more time spent reviewing the change could have prevented it. As a bonus, I managed to simplify the logic a bit. Writing software is an incremental process. I could feel bad about not writing the perfect code from the beginning but I choose to enjoy the process of finding and implementing improvements. Making the code and the program better over time. Tracking down a chm thumbnail crash Not all crashes can be fixed given information in crash report. I saw a report with crash related to creating a thumbnail crash. I couldn’t figure out why it crashes but I could add more logging to help figure out the issue if it happens again. If it doesn’t happen again, then I win. If it does happen again, I will have more context in the log to help me figure out the issue. Update: I did fix the crash. Fix crash when viewing favorites menu A user reported a crash. I was able to reproduce the crash and fix it. This is the bast case scenario: a bug report with instructions to reproduce a crash. If I can reproduce the crash when running debug build under the debugger, it’s typically very easy to figure out the problem and fix it. In this case I’ve recently implemented an improved version of StrVec (vector of strings) class. It had a compatibility bug compared to previous implementation in that StrVec::InsertAt(0) into an empty vector would crash. Arguably it’s not a correct usage but existing code used it so I’ve added support to InsertAt() at the end of vector. How could I not write the bug? I should have written a unit test (which I did in the fix). I don’t blindly advocate unit tests. Writing tests has a productivity cost but for such low-level, relatively tricky code, unit tests are good. I don’t feel too bad about it. I did write lots of tests for StrVec and arguably this particular usage of InsertAt() was borderline correct so it didn’t occur to me to test that condition. Use after free I saw a crash in crash reports, close to DeleteThumbnailForFile(). I looked at the code: if (!fs->favorites->IsEmpty()) { // only hide documents with favorites gFileHistory.MarkFileInexistent(fs->filePath, true); } else { gFileHistory.Remove(fs); DeleteDisplayState(fs); } DeleteThumbnailForFile(fs->filePath); I immediately spotted suspicious part: we call DeleteDisplayState(fs) and then might use fs->filePath. I looked at DeleteDisplayState and it does, in fact, deletes fs and all its data, including filePath. So we use freed data in a classic use after free bug. The fix was simple: make a copy of fs->filePath before calling DeleteDisplayState and use that. How could I not write the bug? Same story: be more careful when reviewing the changes, test the changes more. If I fail that, crash reporting saves my ass. The bug didn’t last more than a few days and affected only one user. I immediately fixed it and published an update. Summary of being more productive and writing bug free software If many people use your software, a crash reporting system is a must. Crashes happen and few of them are reported by users. Code reviews can catch bugs but they are also costly and reviewing your own code right after you write it is not a good time. You’re tired and biased to think your code is correct. Maybe reviewing the code a day after, with fresh eyes, would be better. I don’t know, I haven’t tried it.
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
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 :)
