Should’ve listed the source. Bad commenter.

God, I hated that terminology when I needed to talk with people about discord.

I would like to go back to the times when I could easily tell a joke from reality. To go, please.

can you elaborate on type=“datetime-local” not existing?

Oh goddamn, I hate web standards sometimes.

There used to be a proposal for datetime-local, but it was dropped, even though some browsers already supported it. That’s what I meant.

However, some years later the W3C added it to the standard again.

More info: https://webmasters.stackexchange.com/a/59541 https://stackoverflow.com/a/22654498/

They do provide a *.deb.

So 1993?

What is wrong with the simple type=“datetime-local”

The problem with that is that it doesn’t exist.

Nitpicking aside, the problem with native browser widgets, in my opinion, are:

• tiny hit areas for desktop users
• no way to highlight certain dates (e.g., holidays) or mark dates ineligible for selection (e.g., future dates)
• no way to indicate the week of year (not an issue for most use cases)
• users don’t know how to un-select a date (you’d think the ‘clear’ button would give that away and you’d be wrong)
• the widget lets you enter invalid dates without telling the user (or the programmer, for that matter), e.g., 31 Sep.

Widgets where you need to click 3 times for a simple selection, as you mentioned, have one of two origin stories:

• They were designed ‘mobile first’ with screen sizes of 320×200px in mind and therefore put a premium on screen real estate.
• The “seeing many things is confusing” camp of designers got hold of them. The fact that my users fail to recognize the ‘clear’ button in the datepicker widget seems to agree with them, but it’s still annoying for people without ADHD.

See https://sopuli.xyz/comment/21686277

Let’s consult Wikipedia (emphasis mine) [1].

Works of encyclopedic scope aim to convey the important accumulated knowledge for their subject domain, such as an encyclopedia of medicine, philosophy or law. Works vary in the breadth of material and the depth of discussion, depending on the target audience.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia#Four_major_elements

Simple English is for people who would like a simpler language. I’m advocating for reduced scope – or at least better organization of detail. Move stuff that’s irrelevant in the great scheme of things to subpages or pages with narrower scope, instead of writing one single compendium on a topic.

I feel like the English Wikipedia is already better at this. In the German, on the other hand, the first sentence sometimes contains multiple lines of etymological derivations of the article’s title before it even mentions what it’s about (as soon as I stumble upon one of these monstrosities again, I’ll report the example here).

Which isn’t a bad thing. Wikipedia has for the last 25 years aimed at providing you with every bit of knowledge there is on a topic. That simply is not what people want when they look for information. No-one wants to read a full library’s worth of text when they want to figure out what happened in WWII. But Wikipedia lists all the minutae of every battle on every part of land, sea and air, including all the acting people from generals down to the lowliest private.

Fall-through in switch/case. The perpetual anti-personnel mine.

Commas are a premium feature now.

I wish you better luck the next time you try to read.

I wish there were a free database of words to answer that question. :(

You store your code in the fridge? Does that keeps the bugs out?

They burned that horse.

As soon as you say, “I was looking for a library,” you’ve already indicated that you feel entitled to find a library somewhere rather than build it yourself

That interpretation is completely on you. Whenever one is writing code, it’s good practice to check if it hasn’t been written before. No-one needs to re-invent the wheel for the umpteenth time.

Do you not understand how that comes across as entitled?

No. This approach is literally taught at Uni. Don’t repeat work. That’s not only in programming. A chemist’s saying is “6 months in the lab can save you 2 hours in the library.” Blindly doing everything from scratch is just incredibly poor use of resources.

You’ll reject a GPL licensed library because it is copylefted and you know your management would never go for GPLing the entire work.

Yes. I don’t see how that’s a contentious point. I think I made my position clear in my last comment.

why do you expect there to just be some library you can use internally

That assumption is based on experience. The whole JavaScript ecosystem thrives on the idea of building stuff based on others’ work. It’s you, btw, that chose to interpret ‘looking for’ as ‘expecting to exist’. I never said that, nor did I mean it.

None of the things in this picture makes sense. It’s a gold mine of Mildly Infuriating

Who has ever heard of a stinky cat? Their beauty routine takes up about 50% of their awake time!