> Additionally, our reference implementation GraphQL.js and client-side framework Relay will be relicensed under the MIT license
News titles must be copies of the articles' titles. So why did you change it?
> We have found that using insertAdjacentHTML() rather than .innerHTML() appends the HTML rather than replacing the current content.
? What does that even mean? It's not that you've found a new species of ants in the rain forest: insertAdjacentHTML is a well-known method from IE6 (IIRC the version) that's been adopted as a standard in recent times.
(It also needs two arguments - the first one being a positional string like 'beforeEnd'.)
(And innerHTML isn't a method, so don't add parentheses after it.)
Beware that's not what's commonly intended with Vue's single file components (.vue files, to be clear). They just can't be directly imported by a browser.
Well, it was about time.
After losing companies like Wordpress to other frameworks like Preact or Vue, they were probably asking themselves if the old license was really worth it.
You just have to explain why you used such a convoluted algorithm to get a random number from 10000 to 99999.
> I sure hope it's not a "few years" though before css-in-js solutions become best practices.
On the contrary, I think CSS-in-JS is quite short-lived. A temporary patch before Web Components become widespread.
> Keep the old APIs, but build a "virtual DOM abstraction" that completely skips the DOM. No more DOM.
The DOM won't go away, there are 25 years of backwards compatibility to support.
And the concept of Virtual DOM isn't the "ultimate thing" of web development. It's not terribly efficient either. The real game changer is the stateful UI.
> It's still predicated on the fact that the DOM and its dom/paint/layout engine is there. We need a whole other engine.
There already is one: it's WebGL. Hard to develop with it? Well sure.
But given that engines improved *a lot* in the past years, why do you *need* all that speed for?
A lot of non-English stuff and a title that's horrifyingly different from the source.
Stay in topic, and use the same title of the linked article.