HackerReposA FIELD GUIDE TO OPEN SOURCE
ProSponsor the shelf♧ 0
← Back to top all-time
prettydiff
wisdom
Developer Tools2016–2025
prettydiff / wisdom

wisdom

Building better developers by specifying criteria of success

8Distinct people
61Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
578GitHub stars
REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

Building better developers by specifying criteria of success

GitHub

Where it is used

No documented product use has been verified yet.

What people are saying

No recommendation phrase was found in the indexed comments.

No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.

Also in these discussions

Mentioned in the same Hacker News threads. That is not proof they are substitutes.

This week on Hacker News

Nov 8–Nov 15 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/15/2026, 4:01:40 AM UTC.

No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.

Mentions over time

HN mentions by year61 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2016-02-25 22:29:49 UTC to 2025-09-14 09:03:09 UTC.

0510152016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 2 mentions; 1 submissions, 1 comments20162017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 1 submissions, 0 comments2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 4 mentions; 0 submissions, 4 comments2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 6 mentions; 1 submissions, 5 comments2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 5 mentions; 0 submissions, 5 comments20202021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 7 mentions; 2 submissions, 5 comments2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 6 mentions; 0 submissions, 6 comments2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 15 mentions; 2 submissions, 13 comments2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 10 mentions; 0 submissions, 10 comments2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 5 mentions; 0 submissions, 5 comments2025

Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.

View mention counts and date ranges
UTC ranges include their start and exclude their end. Select a period to filter the source evidence.
PeriodStart (UTC)End (exclusive, UTC)MentionsSubmissionsComments
20162016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC211
20172017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC110
20182018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC404
20192019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC615
20202020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC505
20212021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC725
20222022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC606
20232023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC15213
20242024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC10010
20252025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC505

What Hacker News says

6 sources
> * stupid - https://github.com/prettydiff/wisdom/blob/master/Delusional_... It seems you wrote this article; have you read it back? You bury the lede under 1230 words explaining some social concepts rather than anything programming-related. Additionally, you use many complex words to describe simple subjects. And you do this knowingly: for example, you felt the need to link the definition of "acquiescence" to the word. If you felt that it was complex enough that this was warranted, why not instead rewrite the surrounding content? If the purpose of this article is to convince people that disagree with your statements, you have certainly lost those people by the end of the article. I don't even disagree with you; the DOM is great and WASM is definitely just another option and not a replacement for JS. Finally, I have to note: there aren't
Read the rest
any citations for your claims in the programming section. One might otherwise wonder where you get an idea like > That DOM mechanism will allow a WASM application to execute DOM methods without having to provide its own DOM application, but it will be limited to markup within the WASM application. when I haven't been able to find anything indicating this elsewhere on the web.
In Web Components could replace frontend frameworks?
> Web Components don’t offer a declarative way of updating the DOM; What does that mean? The methods provided by the web components spec appear declarative as do the methods provided by the DOM spec. Declarative example with nothing like innerHTML: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Element/att... Either way this discussion is stupid as updating the DOM is stupid simple even without a framework. The DOM is neither stateful or stateless, but rather that describes the implementation of your application logic. * DOM - https://prettydiff.com/2/guide/unrelated_dom.xhtml * state - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_(computer_science) * stupid - https://github.com/prettydiff/wisdom/blob/master/Delusional_...
In Web Components could replace frontend frameworks?
I encounter this argument a lot from JavaScript developers and often it is due to an irrational fear of the technology[1]. Coupled with limited experience the argument becomes its own internal justification where you MUST use the pet framework, because if you don't everything else will become an alternate framework. If your experience is solely limited to configuring particular frameworks this argument makes sense just if you are a hammer everything looks like a nail. The core motivation, in most cases, is to lower risk and re-calibrate for complexity. There are several problems with this line of thinking. First of all, web technologies are very stable at this point. The risks are not in the standard technologies or so much their implementation. This means the risks are actually all in the developer's implementation and the business
Read the rest
. As for business risk the solution is to define policy so that requirements are properly formulated and the code result is properly tested. Secondly, complexity is wildly misunderstood. Complexity has nothing to do with easy versus challenging. Complexity is simply putting things together. Simplicity is the progression towards singularity. A solution that calls for a single ugly 5000 line function is three times more simple than a solution that calls for 3 clean and tiny 10 line functions. Once you understand that much of the stupidity is the result of a lack of confidence you are in a much better place to deliver a solution without the stupidity that slows people down. You have to be honest with yourself and accept that code is only available to achieve automation and is always a liability. Once you accept it and own it you immediately alter your goals to the following: 1. Write less code. The best way to lower your liability is to have less stuff to be liable for. This includes the totality of the coded production from your code, to all the abstractions that you configure, and all the dependencies you bring in. 2. Be better at finding imperfections in the product and not the code. One way to do this is to make failure more clear so that you can account for it before shipping the code off to anybody else. I tell web developers to save their HTML with the file extension XHTML and always conform to WCAG 2.0 AA compliance, because then failure is immediate and you really see it with clarity. I also tell them to not use addEventListener because then they are limited to a single handler per event and if they cannot properly manage their code it will fail and that failure is immediately clear. I also tell them to look closer at the standard DOM methods which are generally faster than other conventions by 50x-16000x unless you are search for elements by attribute name/value which is about 16x slower than using a similar query selector. 3. Spend more time up front writing automation so less time is spent doing manual work. It is nice when the documentation is always up to date because it is dynamically generated from the code. 4. Provide complete test automation but not test coverage. Ensure there are tests for every business requirement, configuration, and collection of competing configurations. Prove the application does all it claims, but don't test for anything else. Testing when done wrong wastes your time. To save time ensure you have very many tests, the results are clearly communicated, and they execute as quickly as possible. After all of that and the code performs correctly it becomes far less effort to extend and to push back on stupidity from poorly considered business requirements, because you know your work is always close to perfect. You know this because you have accepted all the related liabilities and addressed them as directly as possible. [1] https://github.com/prettydiff/wisdom/blob/master/Delusional_...
In Start a side project, says GitHub founder (2008)

MAKE YOURSELF AT HOME

A few shortcuts

/
Search the collection
?
Open this guide
Esc
Close dialogs and navigation

Your saved repositories and interests stay in this browser.