1. Svelte is a good framework, but most of the DX praise comes from React folk. In my experience, Svelte is less polished and less comfortable to work with than Vue.
2. The biggest problem with Vue is that your choice of SSR frameworks is limited to Nuxt, and Nuxt is, to put it mildly... not a good framework. It is full of reinventing the wheel, ambiguity, and foot guns. In my experience, I regretted every project I used Nuxt for.
As I needed good SSR, SvelteKit was a breeze: everything just renders on the server when I want it to, proper client/server separation, MVC-looking code.
3. Svelte has way lower adoption than Vue, not to mention React. So there are not many 3rd party libraries, and even important tools like Storybook or ESLint struggle with it.
It also tends to switch syntaxes a lot. Even this announcement contains a mention of switching from +page files to queries. This hurts AI usage a lot.
As a conclusion: A year ago, I would say that you should pick Svelte where SSR is critical, and stay on Vue for the rest. But as we have https://inertiajs.com/ right now, you can do SSR of any complexity in Vue + any backend you have.
I used mainly Vue from 0.12 until 3 (migrated one project to 3 but didn’t work with it extensively), with a bit of react sprinkled in. Mainly react the last 4 years or so, which let’s be honest is mainly not me writing the code.
I tried Svelte a couple times over the years, never really clicked for me though.
Other advantages of Svelte over React/Vue is that it does not require a Svelte specific library or wrapper, you can use vanilla JS libraries and it works seamlessly. I consider that as plus, you can old good old Chart.js, Ag-grid, etc without any wrapper, I tried some libraries with React/Vue that had wrappers for multiple frameworks, and most of them were painful, because each framework/library has their way to do things that collides with them, while Svelte is basically vanilla web tech with some sparkles over it.
I use React, Vue, and Svelte extensively, and I don't think that there is any problem with integrating 3rd party JS libraries in any of these frameworks.
React, as the most bare-bones framework, might be simplest to integrate, and you can see that by the enormous size of its ecosystem.
Vue and Svelte will have problems with integrating various devtools, due to the fact they use custom syntax to mimic native web tech. In Vue, this problem is solved by framework popularity and the fact that the Vue team produced most of the key devtools, so Vue is, of course, supported.
Svelte, on the other hand, still works badly with Storybook and linters.
A good counterexample to your take will be that I was unable to use the JS version of Framer Motion with Svelte without huge caveats that made making any complex animation impossible. I wasn't able to do so with Vue, for roughly the same reasons, but Vue, as a big framework, got 1st party support.
Integrating React with third party libraries has always been a pain for me.
The re-render model just doesn't quite fit with the way most JS libraries work. They hand you a class that you have to keep around. This can be solved with useState, but you have to use this weird construction `const [instance] = useState(() => new Whatever())`. Or even worse if the library needs an element to instantiate.
Then, you likely need some event listeners. They ended up not implementing useEvent, so this has to happen in useEffect. God forbid if you need to rebind the listener because a prop changes (possibly every rerender) or the library does something heavy on adding them.
Then, if a prop changes and you need to do something (like recenter a map), useEffect.
Occasionally you might want to reach for useSyncExternalStore but then get hit by the identity issue. The return value must be the same between renders or you end up with infinite rerenders. Many libraries just do `return { foo, bar}`. Not good enough for react.
Basically every JS library integration ends up with a thousand use effects, various useMemos (and useCallbacks) and I've never got (or seen) a satisfying result. There's always sync issues or too many rerenders or...
I've used various vanilla js libs with Vue over the years. It was always pretty easy to make a wrapper component and hook whatever library up to the lifecycle, usually just a few lines of code. I'd prefer that over just making random charts everywhere if I was using something like highcharts.
If programming was used to temporarily increase one's self esteem from it then it's not a problem with the IAs, but a psychological problem.
The problem is valuing a human being because of what they produce and not recognizing intrinsic value.
The same situation could have happened in a different profession when automation replaced it, it's not about IA.
I think their business model was sustainable, but depended on SEO. AI made it so people would either use the LLM generated tailwind syntax, or the "AI Overview" at the top of the Google search results and never land on the official tailwind documentation site. Less visits on the official docs meant less people would see the paid offerings, which means less people would buy.
It's possible they could have explored other marketing channels (youtube?), but it seems like the death of SEO for this sort of content lead to the main issues.
I'm not sure if everyone in this thread is familiar with what their business model was. It wasn't "selling tailwind premium" or selling "tailing enterprise support". They sold a library of react components that happened to use tailwind for styling. So their competitors are DIY, Mantine, React-Bootstrap, and similar.
I'm not sure they'd even be classed as competitors to be honest. They floundered massively with the ui kit, most sections of it were very dated and untouched for several years whilst they piddled about with a failed new ui kit that never took off, for which they blamed ai.
The reality was that a big chunk of their initial audience came from Laravel, and as other players emerged and made what was Tailwind UI irrelevant it all seemed to compound into them panicking and making some rather silly business decisions. At one point they had a sizeable team and shipped nothing for a good 8 months, and when they did it was a couple of beautiful but completely impractical landing pages. They just didn't convert it to a sustainable business.
Oh and to add to it, they alienated their paying customers by dropping support for basic js based components in favour of making the entire ui library reliant on heavy js libraries, killing off any interest from most of the Laravel customers who'd been their initial target audience.
EU politicians seemed to be fairly captured by corporations generally. Less so than politicians from the countries themselves. Voting turnout for EU representatives is very low compared with voting for local officials. I think its because people know that who they vote for as their chancellor or prime minister can make a big impact on their lives. They see the EU parliament as this distant thing and don't follow it so much. EU representatives therefore don't have as much accountability and can more easily be swayed by lobbying. How else can you explain the whole chat control thing which everyone hates but still keeps getting pushed through. Like who is voting for this a-holes.
It passed on a technicality of present reps voted against in majority but not enough total votes because the president had triggered a special vote for the last session before recess when less reps are present.
Was even one representative that voted for this from a region where the people that they represent wanted it by even the slimmest of majorities? I don't think so. These votes were in full defiance of their constituents.
The one thing EU politicians hate is disruption. Entrepreneurs are fresh entrants trying to disrupt an existing market. The politicians don't even need to be puppets. The fact that these small startups exist and may even succeed is reason enough.
Its not as bad as in the US I think, but yeah, most of the laws are actually (literally) written by corporations. I wouldn't call them puppets, but EU corps have an outsized influence on the outcome of the process.
I don‘t know about EU laws specifically, but national law in Europe is often written by lobby firms in favor of their corporate sponsors. In Iceland for example the main corporate lobby is called Viðskiptaráð, and they brag about the high percentage of laws they write passing at the parliament (in 2007 it was like 90%). I don‘t think things are much different in the rest of Europe (maybe just less obvious due to size differences).
That might be one reason they refuse to be open about their financial supports in their various organizations yes. it is very well known unfortunately..
The entire purpose of EU is trade (trading nations don't go to war etc), trade is more or less defined by large corporations, it's through that lens every decision is made and measured.
Nothing specific to EU here except the specific point is about EU this time. Otherwise just copy paste "most EU politicians are puppets of EU corporations" in some search engine and enjoy, here are the top result of such a search:
So even searching specifically for praising information, one will have to dig deep apparently, or maybe go straight to the official propaganda of what the politicians say about themselves (but probably less so about others).
Everyone is free to go as deep as they want (and can afford) and draw their own conclusions.
With pervasive AI agents, intrapersonal trust between humans is going to be more important than ever.
Completely real-time translation is an impossibility since languages have different sentence orders, so it will always be an awkward filter with fits and starts that erodes trust.
Now they cause harm because there's people that may believe a fake video is real. But people is developing skepticism about what they see in videos and learning to think that they may be generated, before taking them as true.
You've seen movies before. You know that they can make fake videos look realistic. We have an entire industry built around it, so why is it only a harm now?
Since it took a certain amount of time and effort, as well as skill in the past, it was a significantly lesser problem than it's becoming now. Especially with video footage.
In his study, "Nearly 2,000 witnesses can be wrong", Buckhout performed an experiment with 2,145 at-home viewers of a popular news broadcast. The television network played a 13-second clip of a mock robbery, produced by Buckhout. ... The people at home could call a number on their screen to report which suspect they believed was the perpetrator. The perpetrator was suspect number 2. ... Approximately equal contingents of participants chose suspects 1, 2, or 5, while the largest group of participants, about 25 percent, said they believed the perpetrator was not in the lineup. Even police precincts called in and reported the wrong man as the one they believed committed the crime.
It will be solved. Walleted, vertically integrated Apple can do a digital authenticity signature and guarantee that the video you see was at least shot on iPhone, and I won’t be surprised if it will happen soon. This + some lidar info will be enabled and everybody except minority will say that this is a great thing to have.
I think I was fairly clear that I’m talking about these machines, not all machines that exist or could exist. If I wasn’t, please read “AI” as “state of the art LLMs as they exist today.”
reply