Not what you're asking, but how about clearing out the collection and keeping a few of each instead of many? I did that recently with my cables and adapters and threw out probably 70% of duplicate and old items.
Yep. After I realized that I had over a dozen DE-9, DB-25 and Centronics cables that hadn't been used in over a decade, I tossed all but one of each. Actually, I think I tossed all of the Centronics ones.
As someone who has used DRF in many projects over a decade, I 100% agree. In my current project I’m using django-ninja which gives me the power of the Django ecosystem and ORM with the simplicity of FastAPI. This is the way.
Is django-ninja maintained? I've always disliked DRF and liked FastAPI, so Ninja was a natural choice, but my team ended up moving away from it because of it being less popular than DRF.
It is very much maintained and got it's 1.0 release not long ago. Sadly there is a single guy doing all the work for Ninja so the tempo of releases varies. I also think there is quite a way to the stability of DRF and DRF's ecosystem. If you want permissions and throttling for example you'll have to use django-ninja-extra which is pretty much "DRF but its Ninja".
For me personally I think the micro approach of Ninja / FastAPI is at odds with what I want out of DRF. I just want to make my crud stuff and not worry about implementing e.g. throttling, etc, on my own.
I think it's a bad idea to judge tech based on popularity. It just becomes a game of high school fashion drama, instead of getting work done.
Also, I think the comparison is unfair due to the sheer age of DRF. Check out this graph: https://star-history.com/#encode/django-rest-framework&vital... Then click the "align timelines" and you see that ninja is more popular than DRF was at the same age.
>I think it's a bad idea to judge tech based on popularity. It just becomes a game of high school fashion drama, instead of getting work done.
I disagree. If one tool is way less popular, you risk it being discontinued. You do not want to start maintaining a web framework on top of your application nor do you want to rewrite your entire app.
People worry too much about that stuff. You can use non-maintained software for decades just fine. But I see people all the time freak out because there wasn't a release in the last week or whatever.
Also, most business fail way before their chosen framework stops being maintained. In fact, most businesses fail before they even got their first customer, let alone getting to break even. We need to keep some perspective here.
You assume that popular high school drama OSS is not productive and you don't get work done with it. Your assumption and the point you are making are incorrect.
Huge performance increase on M2 MBP when using multiple spaces. I find arc to be great but it has been painfully sluggish to use, now it might actually be usable as primary browser.
TL:DR; We don't want to use GCP and we don't like that Google.is intergrating Firebase into it. As someone who is running on GCP, I can't wait for them to fully merge Firebase into the GCP dashboards. Not a high vakue article, really...
I couldn’t agree more. This and the cloud foundation toolkit for terraform is why we chose GCP, and it got us up and running with an impressive infrastructure in a few days.
Is your goal really to be up and running in a few days? My goal is to run for years without significant ops effort. Maintainence cost always, always dwarves development cost.
I absolutely hate Jira, it's slow, everything takes many steps, overall horrible. That said, I recently tried their next-gen product and it's surprisingly really nice. It doesn't have all the features but it's fast and much more intuitive to use, even though it looks basically the same on the surface.
We have used Clubhouse for a couple of years, it's fine but I feel like the UI is getting more cluttered, there is very little reporting, few new features. For months the only news were updated to their referral program. They just introduced iteration support ️
Strongly considering to move to Jira next-gen, looks very promising.
Unless Atlassian has made some major changes to the new Jira recently, I'd advise a lot of caution before moving.
My small team is currently on Clubhouse after attempting to use Jira for a few months and finding it to get in the way a ton. There wasn't any configuration locking anything down like everyone has been talking about, but the page load times were atrocious and the UI just felt painfully slow all the time (on a 100mpbs+ internet connection and a laptop with an i7).
I believe I also remember having to move back and forth between various views in the side menu depending on which page I was on - essentially going in and out of the "project" view when clicking into certain features.
Consider it by all means, but do your testing thoroughly. My Jira experience turned me off so badly I likely wouldn't consider using any Atlassian products in the future.
> It doesn't have all the features but it's fast and much more intuitive to use, even though it looks basically the same on the surface.
The "It doesn't have all the features" part is the kicker here. I agree that Atlassian has fixed a lot of problems with their next-gen projects, but I think they're unusable for a lot of situations because:
1. the missing features (lots of workflow stuff that people rely on, for example)
2. they don't play well with other Jira projects. That's fine if teams are totally independent, but an epic from a classic project can't contain an issue from a next-gen project, as an example.
That said: if you've got projects that can work within the limitations of next-gen, I think it's a good move forward!
Agreed, I tried them for a while but now I've switched to Capital One 360. Excellent app and web, savings account with 1.6% interest, free ATM worldwide, no foreign transaction fees, etc. I tried Schwab as well but IMHO Capital One is above and beyond the others when you look at everything offered.
