Wouldn't call it a risk in itself, but part of the benefit of using a library, a good and tailored one at least, is that it'll get modernised without my intervention. Even if the code produced for you was state-of-the-art at the moment of inclusion, will it remain that way 5 years from now?
I don't quite understand your argument. Wasn't the post about how users might replace transparent dependencies with transparent LLM drop-ins? I don't see how having an LLM to do the same job would enable someone to learn more. They're probably the kind of person who will ask the LLM to perform a refactor when problems arise, so they won't learn that much through osmosis.
How do you know it's viable? We may try, but if your argument is merely that it wasn't disproven yet, then it doesn't invalidate OP's point of it being aspirational first.
But availability of new works shall change once the floor of how popular you need to be to survive off of art will change and it will, since not everyone will care. Taylor Swift will be fine either way, but it's not about her.
I'm not tracking what's currently going on with the underwater portion of frontend iceberg. Are things still like it was in late '00s and early '10s, where browsers still had plenty of their unique implementation quirks and non-standard features, and plenty of sites were relying on those?
Back in the day, it was not entirely unheard of having two significantly different frontend implementations - one for IE, another for Netscape, with quite unhealthy amounts of parser hacks to hide code from the browsers.
Possibly naively, but I think it's not that bad nowadays? (At least it wasn't so in late '10s.) Some things are Chrome-only, or Apple-only, but I rarely see "not supported in your browser" - the majority of features is generally standards compliant, and all those newcomer engine problems (like in the article) are mostly because there's a lot to implement.
It is not about what is supported now, but what will be supported in the future? Google is pushing most of the web standards and has a huge influence. Other, less used browsers must support them if they want to have any chance.
You should ask that how many of the standard features are brought by someone else without huge influence of Google. If you cannot get anything new, when it is enough that Google says "no", then in reality there is only one browser.
They don’t. Most of the common web developers do what the managers and users require. Otherwise you are not providing value and using your time efficiently.
I feel like the addition of LLMs is an introduction to finding another source of revenue. That Perplexity pop-up we've been shown lately seems like an experiment in that.
They move things in mobile UI a lot, so the docs might not reflect that. I know it used to look like on this screenshot, but I haven't had it in my Nightly for a while.
