Why don’t you send me even more replies over the next few days, I’m sure that will be really helpful!

Sure, that was cleared up a couple hours ago when OP clarified as such. Since texture apparently wanted to argue (given his many comments posted long after the clarification), I thought I’d play along for him.

Yep, I’m being serious, Fedora’s decisions don’t affect Arch.

And yet, Fedora changing their default login manager won’t affect Arch.

Quickly in Bazzite, not at all in Cachy since that’s based on Arch.

It’s Gnome. They do actually keep removing stuff that they disable by default, because they don’t even offer a GUI to configure these settings.

Ah, bummer. Looks like they don’t provide a Fedora repo, otherwise it would have been easy to layer onto Silverblue etc. There’s probably still some way, but I get not wanting to go through that trouble.

Out of interest, which client is that?

And that’s why I immediately fell in love with immutable distros. While such problems are rare, they can and do happen. Immutable distros completely prevent them from happening.

Yes, there exist different kinds of type safety. What the fuck are you even asking?

Sure, never claimed anything different. Runtime type safety != type safety.

There are plenty of libraries to provide type safety at runtime.

Yes it is? It isn’t strictly sound, but it is type-safe aside from explicit escape hatches (which other type-safe languages also provide).

That is not a good enough reason to justify its existence.

There is no better reason to justify the existence of any technology than it having objective advantages, even if there are drawbacks as well!

You can very well say that fossil fuel companies should continue to exist because look at how long it’s been around with all the expertise people have. Surely they should stay around, right?

You’re pretending that I’m making a completely different argument. Don’t do that. I never mentioned “how long it’s been around with all the expertise people have”. There are literal objective advantages. Why are you pretending they don’t exist?

Please also see my other comment

So people should choose a model that decreases development speed & increases complexity as well as the potential for bugs/side effects, just because “it’s the right way to go”. People have been trying to embrace the cascade for a long, long, long time, and it keeps causing issues in larger applications that simply don’t happen with non-cascading approaches.

Why do you pretend like these aren’t real advantages?

See, that’s a great example of a critique that nobody with professional experience would make.

There is a natural tendency to try reinvent something when you don’t understand it enough to be comfortable with it. Then that new thing lacks the maturity and scrutiny that the old thing went through to survive the test of time.

While this is something that does happen, there’s also a tendency for people in the industry to dismiss new things without actually looking into the pros and cons.

Doesn’t it give you pause that many very experienced Frontend & CSS developers see objective advantages in Tailwinds utility class approach? Of course there are also objective disadvantages, don’t get me wrong. But that means that these tools should be used whenever their advantages can shine and their disadvantages don’t cause issues.

Any developer that can’t clearly name the issues with regular CSS that Tailwind attempts to solve either hasn’t been developing long enough to encounter these issues, or hasn’t actually tried to understand what Tailwind is.

That’s what Tailwind looks like to people who think they know CSS.

You just unlocked a core direwolf20 memory

The g in gobject stands for “Go run away as fast as you can and you may survive”

If ranting about cultural associations of animals makes me autistic, I don’t want to be autistic!