Though, we do have to be very careful with interpreting online commentary as representative the collective, when trying to understanding whether something is considered good/bad.
Firstly because only a small proportion of people voice their opinion publicly at all - so only a small proportion of opinions get heard.
Secondly because opinions that are voiced are much more likely to be definitive in nature (it's great / it's terrible) as people tend to be less willing to comment "it's ok" - so vociferous voices tend to dominant online discourse.
Finally, because online communities often represent a niche/specific demographic and so if you only see the views from a particularly online community it's a fair bet they are not very representative.
That's my point. A single opinion is nothing on its own. Further, taste is such a thing where two people can have extremely different tastes, but both be right.
I guess my initial reaction was about presuming that some commenters here are presuming that their taste is the taste everyone has, but a more generous interpretation would have been that they are simply unhesitant to share their subjective point of view. So, I revise my take to the more generous one.
To be fair, while I love the Hyundai you linked to, it’s mostly going to appeal to people raised on a diet of 80/90s cars, with a particular focus on Japanese exports and Initial D.
It has more character because it’s lower, has sharper, sportier lines, and more refined shape. Also the frontend just has a pleasant retro-futuristic design (as does the rest of the car). This ferrari, besides having none of ferrari dna, is an amorphous blob, high off the ground, and all the lines screaming family crossover. Even if someone likes the design, which I don’t doubt there are people that do, it’s objectively a worse looking sports car than the Hyundai mentioned above.
More subjectively speaking, the Luce’s frontend also just does not flow nicely together. It almost feels weird for the sake of being contrarian, to show how much it’s not tied to a „regular” car shape, due to being an EV. You can design a car from the ground up for the sake of being an EV and not have it look… like that
I've waited for union types on C# so long that I don't even care about syntax anymore. Just give us something that works. So, I appreciate the effort, I know it's taken at least a decade to get it into this shape, and much thought has gone into it. Kudos to the team.
Not OP, but I've found Avalonia to be pretty much a direct replacement for WinForms. I mean that both as a compliment and a deserved insult. It's not the WinForms we wanted, but it is the one we deserve.
More seriously, it has all the strengths and weaknesses of WinForms and feels about exactly as unfinished and rough as WinForms. I still have to implement custom widgets that i would have expected to be included out of the box. It's nice that it's cross-platform, though with all the rough edges that cross-platform .net still has. It really, truly feels exactly like every C# UI framework I've ever used in the last 20 years: almost good, not quite finished, and takes an amount of effort that is just unreasonable compared to any other language/framework of any age.
I've been a C# dev for most of my career. I have more fun writing UIs from scratch by drawing individual pixels in C++ than any C# UI.
I'm truly surprised that it feels that underdeveloped. They market Avalonia as a direct replacement for WPF too. So, I'd expect it at least match WPF to be fair.
As someone who had written lots of XHTML in the past, not having closing tags makes my eyes twitch like Scrat in Ice Age. I even occasionally write `<br>` like `<br/>` out of habit.
Yes yes, someone is about to tell me that Opera running on a PS Vita with the language set to Basque will display those incorrectly. That ISO 714-4BΔ-鸡冠 defines them as undefined, and prohibits them within eight clock ticks of C sequence points. That Apple charges an extra 1% app store commission for them (except where prohibited by court injunction).
Call it a concession to my sanity. A song of saner days.
Someone here. OP most certainly knows that precisely, but for the rest: It was Netscape® Communicator, which interpreted everything after `<` up to either white-space or `>` as a tag name. Technically that wasn't even that much incorrect, but amusingly, since the HTML "specs" then still stemmed from SGML, the really correct outcome of `<br/>` (and even `<br />` with a space before the "closing" solidus) back then should have been to both emit the (empty, by definition) BR element (⁕) and a dangling `>` text node after that. No consumer-facing HTML client really implemented that. Netscape simply took it as unknown "BR/" tag and didn't render anything in its place.
In the late '90s Netscape was a niche browser with negligible 80% market share. The real and eternal XHTML enlightenment had begun a few years later, in the early 2000s and reached near eternal duration of seven years.
Practically, using `<br />` in HTML with space was safe, like, forever, except for original W3C validator and Amaya. Using `<br/>` is safe since around 2002-2008 when Netscape was dying. In 2026, you can throw basically anything at current browsers and it will repair it to something meaningful, as per the living HTML spec. You can go `</br/r/r>`, if you are really into solidi, and it will work the same as `<br>`.
Disclosure: I also clearly see how having stupid simple "XML-like" syntactic rules would be beneficial in the grand scheme of things compared to what HTML became: memorising the "VOID" HTML elements by heart, and having to implement this in every HTML processing product clearly creates significant mental and processing overhead. But FMPoV, it's just one inconvenience we should begrudgingly accept at this point, rather than fight it.
(⁕) In reality, the way browsers treat `<br>` in the document flow is more like a text node than element node, but it's just an implementation detail orthogonal to this topic.
Haha, blushing in awkward uncertainty that I've failed to detect irony …? (Is this HN, right?) But even if, thanks anyway! I'm glad I could vent the lore I've spent gathering in unhealthy amount of unproductive research; I cannot imagine better place to finally bury that than deep in super-tangential HN discussion…
No no, dead earnest. I'm a big believer in honest compliments, where merited.
Please start writing a blog, if you don't already. If I could compose a blog roll of people writing fun CS histories, I would replace my HN bookmark with it.
You cannot close HTML tags that way anyways, <br> and <br/> are the same, as are <div> and <div/>. The spec defines whether an element self-closes, the slash is just ignored.
Which Ferrari had general public as its target audience?
reply