Laravel is the worst framework ever.

Everything has to be made convenient and easy. That sounds amazing, because developers want to save time, worry less about boilerplate code, right? No more constructors, no more dependency injection, fuck all the tedious OOP shit... RIGHT?

It does one thing well: Make PHP syntax uniform and concise through easily integrated libraries such as Collection and Carbon. But those are actually not really part of the framework... just commonly integrated and associated with Laravel.

The framework itself is completely derailed: You can define code in a callback in the routes file. You can define a controller in the routes file. You can define middleware as a parameter to the route, as a fluent method to the route, you can stack them up in a service provider. Validators can be made in controllers, Request objects, service providers, etc. You can send mail inline, through Mailable objects, through Notification objects, etc.

Everything is macroable, injectable, and definable in a million different places. Ultimate freedom!

Guess what happens when you give 50 developers of various seniority a swiss army knife?

One hammers in a screw with a nail file, the other clips the head from the screw using scissors, and you end up with an unworkable mess and blunt tools.

And don't get me started about Eloquent, the Active Record ORM. It's cute for the simple blog/article/author/comment queries, but starts choking when you want more selective and performant queries or more complex aggregates, and provides such an opaque apple-esque interface which lets people think everything is OK, when in reality it's forcing the SQL server to slowly commit suicide.

Please. Hear me out.

I've been doing frontend for six years already. I've been a junior dev, then in was all up to the CTO. I've worked for very small companies. Also, for the very large ones. Then, for huge enterprises. And also for startups. I've been developing for IE5.5, just for fun. I've done all kinds of stuff — accessibility, responsive design (with or without breakpoints), web components, workers, PWA, I've used frameworks from Backbone to React. My favourite language is CSS, and you probably know it. The bottom line is, you name it — I did it.

And, I want to say that Safari is a very good browser.

It's very fast. Especially on M1 Macs. Yes, it lacks customization and flexibility of Firefox, but general people, not developers, like to use it. Also, Safari is very important — Apple is a huge opposing force to Google when it comes to web standards. When Google pushes their BS like banning ad blockers, Apple never moves an inch. If we lose Safari, you'll notice.

As for the Safari-specific bugs situation, well… To me, Safari serves as a very good indicator: if your website breaks in Safari, chances are you used some hacks that are no good. Safari is a good litmus test I use to find the parts of my code that could've been better.

The only Safari-specific BUG I encountered was a blurry black segment in linear gradients that go from opaque to transparent. So, instead of linear-gradient(#f00, transparent), just do linear-gradient(#f00f, #f000).

This is the ONLY bug I encountered. Every single time my website broke in Safari other than that, was for some ugly hack I used.

You don't have to love it. I don't even use it, my browser of choice is Firefox. But, I'm grateful to Safari, just because it exists. Why? Well, if Safari ceases to exist, Google will just leave both W3C and WhatWG, and declare they'll be doing things their way from now on. Obey or die.

Firefox alone is just not big enough. But, together with Safari, they oppose Google's tyranny in web standards game.

Google will declare the victory and will turn the web into an authoritarian dictatorship. No ad blockers will be allowed. You won't be able to block Google's trackers. Google already owns the internet, well, almost, and this will be their final, devastating victory.

But Safari is the atlas that keeps the web from destruction.

Dynamically typed languages suck. God I hate them

It's like one big clunky free for all. I don't understand how people can work in Python or even JavaScript and tell me that they're good languages with a straight face

Not having proper autocomplete or documentation (a somewhat seperate issue of Python) is a kick in the stomach for productivity.
I've seen people advocate for using EXTERNAL DOCUMENTATION VIEWERS. WHAT

I hate not being able to enforce types so I can reason about little parts of my program. I hate not having an IDE that can actually help me. I hate having to see stupid grep'ed code snippets instead of nicely formatted javadocs. I hate having to double and triple check everything when trying to code. I hate handling effectively opaque values where I don't know anything about the type without looking it up. And I especially hate not knowing what types function parameters need to be.

Dynamic typing doesn't remove types. That, although completely unfeasible, I could respect.
Oh no, the types are still there. Just not for you

It's like solving a jigsaw puzzle with a blindfold on

LOL that's why I love C!

The function pointer cast for strcmp because qsort expects a compare function with two const void * pointers instead of two const char * pointers, that's just beautiful.

Not to mention the hack to abuse strcmp on a struct - which just works because the first struct member is a string and the rest just gets swapped with memcpy as opaque data.

I guess that wouldn't pass a code review at work. :-)

I pasted scotch tape on the small sensor under the mice of everyone (like 20 people). Then I used a black marker on the scotch tape so it wad completely opaque.

Result? Everyone panicked when they tried to use their computer because the mouse was not working.

web technologies rot your brain into a festering deadly biohazard mush. web technologies are the worst thing that ever happened to this world. fucking festering web shitosystem fuck this disgusting stupid fragile opaque bloated universe-sized chunk of retarded pukeshit.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE FUCKING GAMES, NOT HAVE MY BRAIN AND SOUL CONSTANTLY ROTTED BY THIS FUCKIN MONUMENT TO UTTER RETARDED LOBOTOMIZED HUMAN INCOMPETENCE FUCK YOU ALL FUCK ALL THIS SHIT FUCKFUCKFUCKFUCK DISGUSTING FUCKIN MINDRAPE PEDOPHILIACS SHOULD STOP FUCKING "INVENTING" SHITPOOLS.

WHEN
THE
FUCK
WILL
SOMEONE
COMPETENT
BE
THE
INVENTOR
OF
SOME
PIECE
OF
IT.

whoever were the rapists who "invented" php, js, html, css, SQL, and all the bullshit about how it's supposed to be configured and communicate with each other should have died of starvation in a fuckin ditch while being raped by squirrels... before they managed to "invent" any of that disgusting shit.

fuck you with your fuckin linux bullshit philosophy which keeps rotting all your brains thinking that this is fine and it can be fixed just by piling more and more layers of fucking shit on top of all this shit.

FUCK.
YOU.
ALL.

My Gripe With Implicit Returns

In my experience I've found that wherever possible code should be WYSIWYG in terms of the effects per statement. Intent and the effects thereof should always be explicit per statement, not implicit, otherwise effects not intended will eventually slip in, and be missed.
It's hard to catch, and fix the effects of a statement intent where the statement in question is *implicit* because the effect is a *byproduct* of another statement.

Worse still, this sort of design encourages 'pyramid coding recursion hell', where some users will first decompose their program into respective scopes, and then return and compose them..atomically as possible, meaning execution flow becomes distorted, run time state becomes dependent not on obvious plain-at-sight code, but on the run time state itself. This I've found is a symptom of people who have spent too much time with LISP or other eye-stabbingly fucky abominations. Finally implicit returns encourage a form of thinking where programmers attempt to write code that 'just works' without thinking about how it *looks* or reads. The problem with opaque-programming is that while it may or may not be effortless, much more time is spent in reading, debugging, understanding, and maintaining code than is spent writing it--which is obviously problematic if we have a bunch of invisible returns everywhere, which requires new developers reading it to stop each and every time to decide whether to mentally 'insert' a return statement.

This really isn't a rant, as much as an old bitter gripe from the guy that got stuck with the job of debugging. And admittedly I've admired lisp from afar, but I didn't want to catch the "everything is functional, DOWN WITH THE STATE" fever, I'm no radical.

Just god damn, think of the future programmer who may have to read your code eventually.

Windows XP was just right. A perfect balance of performance and functionality.

Everything less complex feels too impractical, everything more complex feels too uncontrollable.

When using XP, I was confident I could get the job done, yet I knew what every process in the task manager did. It’s not the case with 7, let alone 10/11. I don’t know what happens under the hood there at all. Maybe custom Linux distros qualify too, but they’re unapproachable by laypeople. You have to be a geek to use them effectively.

Windows XP struck just the right balance between functionality, simplicity and compatibility. Too bad the era is gone in favor of opaque surveillance.

I’m working on buying a license from a company with completely opaque pricing. To the point they are asking me what I want to pay and then getting offended with I low ball them! WTF do you expect?! List some freaking prices.

Why is AWS so opaque? Every time I run into a new awkwardly name service I have to parse some redundant management speak to figure out what it does. Does it really matter to anyone that their services have special names with words like "Simple"?

Our computer science GCSE exams are so flawed in so many ways. They're awfully vague or just completely wrong. In the last exam I did, I got a question that was basically:

"There is a server in a network. Name 3 of its functions"

If you did not provide an answer within the 5 "correct answers", it was considered incorrect as it was beyond the curriculum hence irrelevant.

That's like penalising people for not correctly guessing the contents of an opaque box...

I've genuinely lost more marks to the flaws in the marking scheme than genuine error.

Valve, pls fix

Very Long, random and pretentiously philosphical, beware:

Imagine you have an all-powerful computer, a lot of spare time and infinite curiosity.
You decide to develop an evolutionary simulation, out of pure interest and to see where things will go. You start writing your foundation, basic rules for your own "universe" which each and every thing of this simulation has to obey. You implement all kinds of object, with different attributes and behaviour, but without any clear goal. To make things more interesting you give this newly created world a spoonful of coincidence, which can randomely alter objects at any given time, at least to some degree. To speed things up you tell some of these objects to form bonds and define an end goal for these bonds:
Make as many copies of yourself as possible.
Unlike the normal objects, these bonds now have purpose and can actively use and alter their enviroment. Since these bonds can change randomely, their variety is kept high enough to not end in a single type multiplying endlessly. After setting up all these rules, you hit run, sit back in your comfy chair and watch.
You see your creation struggle, a lot of the formed bonds die and desintegrate into their individual parts. Others seem to do fine. They adapt to the rules imposed on them by your universe, they consume the inanimate objects around them, as well as the leftovers of bonds which didn't make it. They grow, split and create dublicates of themselves. Content, you watch your simulation develop. Everything seems stable for now, your newly created life won't collapse anytime soon, so you speed up the time and get yourself a cup of coffee.
A few minutes later you check back in and are happy with the results. The bonds are thriving, much more active than before and some of them even joined together, creating even larger bonds. These new bonds, let's just call them animals (because that's obviously where we're going), consist of multiple different types of bonds, sometimes even dozens, which work together, help each other and seem to grow as a whole. Intrigued what will happen in the future, you speed the simulation up again and binge-watch the entire Lord of the Rings trilogy.
Nine hours passed and your world became a truly mesmerizing place. The animals grew to an insane size, consisting of millions and billions of bonds, their original makeup became opaque and confusing. Apparently the rules you set up for this universe encourage working together more than fighting each other, although fights between animals do happen.
The initial tools you created to observe this world are no longer sufficiant to study the inner workings of these animals. They have become a blackbox to you, but that's not a problem; One of the species has caught your attention. They behave unlike any other animal. While most of the species adapt their behaviour to fit their enviroment, or travel to another enviroment which fits their behaviour, these special animals started to alter the existing enviroment to help their survival. They even began to use other animals in such a way that benefits themselves, which was different from the usual bonds, since this newly created symbiosis was not permanent. You watch these strange, yet fascinating animals develop, without even changing the general composition of their bonds, and are amazed at the complexity of the changes they made to their enviroment and their behaviour towards each other.
As you observe them build unique structures to protect them from their enviroment and listen to their complex way of communication (at least compared to other animals in your simulation), you start to wonder:
This might be a pretty basic simulation, these "animals" are nothing more than a few blobs on a screen, obeying to their programming and sometimes getting lucky. All this complexity you created is actually nothing compared to a single insect in the real world, but at what point do you draw the line? At what point does a program become an organism?
At what point is it morally wrong to pull the plug?

Okay, my initial revulsion for ABI has receded. All things considered, my options aren't that bad. I just had to change my perspective from "huge downgrade from static linkage" to "huge upgrade from a message channel".

Just like a web API, I have to draw a continuous line through the program that separates specific concerns of interest that must fall on one side or another, and which can only cross through things with specific properties.

There are several crates shipping a number of different binary-compatible types, even generic types. Not everything can cross, sure, but maybe not everything should cross either. Maybe a DLL should receive an opaque handle for certain things, such as interpreter internal code representations. Maybe having these separated is important enough to justify having a translation layer.

I'm sure there's much woe ahead, but I'm learning to stop worrying and love the ABI.

Why is deployment such an opaque topic most of the time????

I have an index.js file to create a server in plain node.js and a package.json file. It builds and deploys successfully to Heroku master. But app does not work. I assume I need to add something to json file but what???