I'm not against new concepts. Client-side rendering is awesome, reactivity is awesome. But I'm against all that bloatware. If a new concept can't be implemented without bloatware (hint: it can), we don't really need it.

But these things can and should be done in a different way. For example, all my JS stack (Z5 + DaBi) targets ES5 and is under 4 KB altogether. Yet it provides:

- DOM manipulation and auto-polyfilling some DOM essentials (only for the stuff that's really uncomfortable to do with native APIs - Q.js);

- reactive in-memory storage (with an ability to easily populate from external objects or remote requests - Zen.js);

- easy data-to-DOM and DOM-to-data binding (DaBi library);

- ability to easily build DOM and CSS styles from JS native constructs (XT.js and XS.js - never go through escaping hell again);

- client-side routing (R.js).

And while I agree that React/Angular are the bloatware (even jQuery is), I disagree that server-side rendering is any better and that throwing in another bloatware like ClojureScript would solve this issue. Like I had said in my article about client-side development (http://clientside.surge.sh/), go native or go home.

Hint: a lot smaller than almost all the CSV files I've had to deal with.

To the grandparent: you might want to make it more explicit that you're actually retaining the uploaded data and not just using it to generate the result page.

Even with such a strict check of the padding character length (with an exception) and a period by default it's a four-liner at most.

  leftPad = (str, len, pd = '.') => {
      if(pd.length !== 1) throw 'Invalid input'
      else return Array(len > str.length ? 1+len-str.length : 0).join(pd) + str
  }

Also, if you want a dumb crime analogy, imagine a situation where robbers get locked up... but only if they voted for a particular party. Uneven enforcement based on whim is a bad thing. Especially when someone is trying extremely hard to follow the rules.

Downvoting is available to anyone who has 500 karma points or more and is not for the selected few. That ability has to be earned so to speak..

No, I am not saying that. And if I understand the dissent correctly being used in the sentence thus, hold or express opinions that are at variance with those previously, commonly, or officially expressed, you are already doing that to my post as an example and you didn't have to be popular to express such an opinion.:)

Voting is a form of expression, and a comment has much less weight than a downvote in terms of ranking.

The only way to be able to express that type of opinion is by complying with the masses long enough to hoard enough karma. So, yes, only the "popular" people get that power.

Reaching a karma threshold does not signify popularity, but it can indicate that the user has somewhat of a track record of likely being able to engage in civil, informed commentary.

I'm not sure it takes popularity to make comments that average upvotes either (I would attribute my thousands of fake points more to persistence than to popularity...).

If something has had enough downvotes to go invisible it's nearly always because offensive, smartass, or spam.

The problem with downvote for everyone, including sock puppet accounts, is it becomes Reddit: "I disagree, have a downvote"

Why does someone has more right than me to decide what's offensive, smartass or spam? Either leave that to the administration, or give that to everyone.

> The problem with downvote for everyone, including sock puppet accounts, is it becomes Reddit: "I disagree, have a downvote"

YMMV but I'm experiencing absolutely the same here.

Btw, when I agree, I upvote. Why can't I downvote when I disagree?

Unique IDs, no way to change or delete (since the gists are anonymous), served right out-of-the-box with a proper content type from cdn.rawgit.com.