stripe-no-webhooks integrates automatically with nextjs via cli & gives you useful abstractions on top of postgres like await billing.credits.consume({ userId, key: "api_calls", amount: 1 });
Anyone else noticing an uptick in confidently stated nonsense on HN? To write that JSON-RPC is "too heavy for editor", you have to not only misunderstand the cost of JSON encoding (trivial) but also the frequency of editor-tool interaction (seldom) and volume of data transferred (negligible). In addition, you have to look at LSP, MCP, and other JSON-y protocols and say "yep. There's where the UI latency is. Got it.". (Nope)
Are people who assert that JSON-RPC is "heavy" writing code we all rely on?
Personally, I want to know why Go was chosen instead of Zig. I think Zig is really more WASM-friendly than Go, and it's much more similar to JavaScript than Rust is.
First reason in my mind is there isn't an abundance of Zig programmers internally in Microsoft, in the job market, and in open source. It's probably a fine choice if you're using it for your passion project e.g. Hashimoto.
Isn’t it going through some controversy of its own at the moment? I understand they want to “source available” rather than keep open source features they’ve developed, because others are forking their work.
The irony being not only are they a fork, their initial feature set was from existing add-ons that they were just downloading/installing by default.
I genuinely don't understand the appeal of a closed Firefox fork. At that point why not just use Vivaldi?
Anyway, after googling the issue, the running of that browser is a bit too amateur hour for me to rely on for something as sensitive as a web browser, even if they have reversed course on the decision.
# Why does pkg.go.dev require a detected license to show docs? Why doesn't godoc.org?
The teams working on the proxy and on pkg.go.dev have spent a lot of time talking to Google's lawyers about what we can and can't do with Go source code downloaded from the internet. The rule we've been given to follow is that serving a pretty HTML version of the docs is displaying a modified version of the original, and we can only do that if there's a recognized known-good license that gives us that permission.
When we adopted godoc.org from Gary Burd back in 2014, it did not occur to any of us to put it through that kind of review. If we had, maybe the community would have gone through this licensing pain earlier. For now we are focusing on making changes to pkg.go.dev rather than correcting past mistakes on godoc.org.
reply