Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | crummy's commentslogin

> For packages typed with JSDoc, CTRL/CMD clicking on a function will take you to actual code rather than a type declarations file. I much prefer this experience as a dev.

ok i didn't think about this, that's an underrated benefit


could be a customizable behavior in editor/ide though

There is indeed an option in VSCode "typescript.preferGoToSourceDefinition" --

Prefer Go To Source Definition

Makes `Go to Definition` avoid type declaration files when possible by triggering `Go to Source Definition` instead.


This works with Typescript too though?

It doesn't. You might be thinking of libraries that you wrote, not packages from e.g. npm, which are distributed as JavaScript + type definition files not as TypeScript code.

It should work if the library was compiled with deceleration map option. Which most libraries are not and it's a shame.

It was added like 3 years ago which was probably a bit too late, not even sure why it's not the default. (File size?)


In real IDEs, not glorified text editors like VSCode, it does. I use this often in IDEA, it's muscle memory so I'm not even completely sure what to press, but it's likely "go to definition" and by default is tied to ctrl+alt+b.

IDEA adds its own analysis on top of that provided by the language server.

Works on JS + every variant of type definitions I've ever seen, among many other things (not only programming languages, but also database objects, etc).


> IDEA adds its own analysis on top of that provided by the language server.

IDEA implements its own analysis and doesn't use tsserver at all. Its semantics diverge in subtle ways, I believe in both directions (some code that tsserver considers valid IDEA will consider invalid and vice versa).




assuming they were able to acquire customers and dominate the world with that business model, would that have prevented them from doing algorithmic feeds and promoting clickbait and poisoning politics and the rest?

sure, people would have been able to cancel their monthly facebook subscriptions if they didn't like that stuff. but we can effectively do that now just by not using it.


If you go with (2), and you add a DB column in a PR, I suppose you include a script to update staging with the new content at the same time?


That is database schema. The post asks for opinions on database contents. They are related though, so it's a valid question.

> I suppose you include a script to update staging

Essentially, yes. But if I write a script to do it on staging, why don't I write one for prod as well? Maybe I could even go beyond that. Make a simple tool to handle those scripts for me (that's migrations).

It requires some version control and deployment discipline, which is something you probably wouldn't have if you're adding columns directly on the prod db.

I learned very early that no developer should have access to prod db. Not even read access. No writing, definitely. Schema changes by a single developer outside version control should be impossible.


More like letting the domain expire, and someone else snapping it up before you can renew.



He is dead inside


Not so much an exception but a work around according to the guardian newspaper [1]:

[...] the law specifically says “no head and shoulders portrait or bust of any person, living or dead, and no portrait of a living person may be included in the design on the reverse of any coin “created to mark the US anniversary”.

The proposed design features a wider illustration of Trump on the reverse side, a move that legal experts said would fall outside the ban on a “head and shoulders portrait or bust”.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/oct/03/trump-coin-t...


[flagged]


Meh, I'm already nauseated by In God We Trust on our currency anyway.


> Docker also made Go credible as a programming language,

Can someone explain why Docker was beneficial for Go?


Because docker was written in golang.

And before docker, not many large applications were.


Ironically, also because Go is one of few popular languages for web applications that can produce a single executable binary and does not require a container to deploy with ease.


I think there's a pretty big citation needed on that part of the article. I'm not clear that Docker contributed to that anywhere near as much as a general increase of momentum around Go as it became better known in the industry.


I've never heard of anyone basing their choice to use Go off of the fact that Docker used it. Certainly, the fact that Google was pushing Go mattered far more.

I think you should see this article as someone who's a huge fan of Docker due to working there for years.


I guess if they go after bigger targets they draw unwanted attention? Seemed odd to me too.


I know Vercel has their fingers in a bunch of pies, but is there any significant vendor locking? I worked at a place where we just put nextJS in a docker container and hosted it ourselves, but maybe we would have got more on Vercel?


Try to scale Next.js globally. Try to keep up to date with new versions, changes in paradigms and the way the output is rendered.

It's designed to be deployed on Vercel. Production-ready hosting part of the Framework is not Open Source nor well documented.

https://github.com/vercel/next.js/discussions/59167 https://www.netlify.com/blog/how-we-run-nextjs/


I migrated https://cartes.app from Vercel to Dokploy, everything is good and simpler.


running nextjs in docker is notoriously bug prone, there are multiple GH issues about this with no real resolution

the official recommendation we got was to just run it on vercel

I would go as far to say that nextjs is not self-hostable in its current state if you expect high traffic and low latency.


They have neglected many issues which would help on self-hosting until the public cry was big enough.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: