I’m making a case for custom codes, not for using a 200 status code with it. My reply said the 200 didn’t make sense.

Of course once you use custom codes, the actual HTTP status codes do become less important, because there’s some redundancy there. That’s not an argument to do it wrong, but it is an argument that accurate HTTP status codes are less of a priority. So understandably some people will take shortcuts.

Apparently you find this very frustrating, but in the end it’s just an implementation detail. But it also sounds like you’re more frustrated with the service API as a whole than the fact it uses custom error codes specifically, so I’m just going to leave it at that.

I’m not arguing against that. Merely providing some counterweight to the idea that the author was “flinging shit in the trenches” 😅

I found the title of that section slightly triggering too, but the argument they lay down actually makes sense. Consistency helps you to achieve correctness in large codebases, because it means you don’t have to reinvent what is correct over and over in separate pockets of the codebase. Such pockets also make incremental improvements to the codebase harder and harder, so they do come back to bite you.

Your example of vendors doesn’t relate to that, because you don’t control your vendor’s code. But you do control your organisation’s.

Well, looking at your example, I think a good case can even be made for it.

“s23” doesn’t look like an HTTP status code, so including it can make total sense. After all, there’s plenty of reasons why you could want custom error codes that don’t really align with HTTP codes, and customised error messages are also a sensible use case for that.

Of course duplicating the actual HTTP status code in your body is just silly. And if you use custom error codes, it often still makes sense to use the closest matching HTTP status code in addition to it (so yeah, I agree the 200 in your example doesn’t make a lot of sense). But neither of those preclude good reasons for custom codes.

Oh, and then I pair it with a very boring Dell mouse for extra style.

Ha, I better not tell you about the Apple Keyboard I use with my Linux laptop then. Don’t like macOS much, but I love their flat keyboards.

There is a serious attempt for that actually: https://www.assemblyscript.org/

It doesn’t offer full compatibility with the regular TypeScript though, despite being very similar.

In fairness, this also happens to me when I write the bash script myself 😂

Thanks! I’d be happy to hear your thoughts.

Mostly the same reason why democracy worked for quite a while too. As long as people believe in a system and see the benefits to themselves as well, they can go quite a while with it.

In general I also think most people aren’t out to screw one another, no matter how much it may seem that way sometimes, so as long as that keeps for the monarchs in a majority of districts, the system could balance itself.

But yeah, I’m not going to say it’s perfect. Sooner or later it would collapse, and when it does my money would be on the same reason as yours.

So I think the main question is: would it be able to last longer than democracies can, especially in the face of mass media manipulation and other challenges. I can’t prove it, but I suspect it might have a decent shot, mostly because the monarchs would be more agile to respond against unforeseen threats.

Pray tell, what does it tell?

Your proposal is just an idealistic version of early US.

Thanks, I guess :)

You claim that corruption is fundamentally impossible, but assume that magically “the monarchs aren’t allowed to own property” without regard to enforcement.

I make no such claim, and I don’t make assumptions regarding enforcement either. Constitutional enforcement is discussed in quite some detail.

You claim to have an alternative to democracy but still propose majority voting on replacing rulers and constitutions.

There is majority voting on deposal of rulers, to be specific. Their replacement isn’t voted on by a majority of the population.

Constitutional changes are voted on through majority, but first require a majority of the monarchs to be on board.

Both these limitations are intentionally designed to mitigate manipulation of the population.

You simply assume that monarchs will keep each other in check and not devolve into the conspiring, warmongering tyrants that history is full of.

There is quite some detail about the enforcement mechanisms. The idea is very much not to assume, but to persuade the monarchs to act in a benevolent manner, by enticement through both the carrot (wealth for as long as they rule), but also the stick (deposal if the majority doesn’t vote in favour of their actions, with a threat of assassination if they refuse to be deposed).

Power can always be abused to get more power and go against all your original ideals. The only way to definitely prevent corruption is to ensure power is never concentrated in the hands of few.

Ah. So it wasn’t me that claimed that corruption is fundamentally impossible, it’s you that claim to have the definitive answer.

For what it’s worth, I agree power shouldn’t be concentrated in the few. Which is why I split power across districts, and between citizens and monarchs, and why the group of monarchs for each district cannot be too small either. It’s all there if you could try to be a little less dismissive.

:D

From your other responses I can see you’re being sarcastic, but yeah, seems that many won’t read any further after seeing the word monarchy :shrug:

There is a huge difference between how things should work and how they will though. Without any system of enforcement, I would call it nothing but wishful thinking.

In fairness, democracy was a kind of wishful thinking too, which is why I would propose a new form of monarchy instead: https://arendjr.nl/blog/2025/02/new-monarchy/

So far, it doesn’t seem that they have broken any laws or whatever, that would cause the system to reject their workings.

They are breaking laws, including the constitution. The courts are trying to reject it, but have no method to enforce their rulings when the executive branch willingly ignores them and even explicitly lies the blame with the courts for trying to protect the system.

https://www.npr.org/2025/02/12/nx-s1-5294666/trump-white-house-constitutional-crisis-judges

Feel free to just use React on the frontend if you’re more familiar with it, but make sure you couple it with Redux. Then when the time comes you want to bring some Rust into the frontend, you can do so by writing your Redux reducers in Rust.

PS.: The blog post mentions using fp-bindgen for WASM bindings, but nowadays you’re probably better off using wasm-bindgen.

Yes, it has a few APIs of its own. I merely think they are negligible in this discussion because they only provide a minimal superset over Node.js’s own APIs and are also very minimal compared to what Deno provides.

I’ve updated my post to mention “noteworthy” APIs.

You’re ignoring the fact that for many projects it does work.

It only needs to be perfect if you want to run 100% Node.js software unaltered. While that may be a lofty goal, it’s also an infeasible one.

That doesn’t mean imperfect support is futile though. By your logic, Bun has no right to exist because it only supports Node.js APIs and doesn’t have noteworthy APIs of its own, and they’re not perfect either. Yet they seem to be at least as successful as Deno is.

Or for an example in a different domain: Your argument would state that a project like WINE shouldn’t exist because it doesn’t have perfect compatibility with Windows, and it disincentivizes development of Linux games. Yet it is largely thanks to WINE that Valve has been able to make the Steam Deck and that Linux gaming is finally taking off.

I think what your argument fails to take into account is that you need a significant amount of users to make any impact on the market. And many users have legacy requirements that they can’t throw out overnight, so you have to support those legacy environments. And even with imperfect legacy support you can support your users, especially if the users are willing to make a few changes here or there. But if you have no legacy support, you also get no users except those that have niche greenfield requirements.

So instead of trying to replace NodeJS or offering an upgrade path for existing Node projects, incentivize formation of ecosystem around Deno

They are incentivizing their own ecosystem. That’s what Jsr.io is all about. But the world isn’t black and white. They can do more than one thing.

I dunno, I still see a blog post. Which is hosted in their own issue tracker, which is of course odd, but also the point.

Maybe it went down for a bit?

So I do consider myself to be a true full-stack developer, since I do have 5+ years of experience working on each of server-side, CLI, desktop applications, and mobile applications and 10+ years on the web frontend. Then again, I’m 40 and I feel too old to get offended over that shit. I also agree the term “full-stack” is diluted as hell, so I don’t even call myself that anymore.

Now get off my lawn :p