Chiques si programan en JavaScript y usan setTimeout para modificar la cola de tareas del engine del lenguaje sepan que soy su enemigo.
(Mentira me piden ayuda cualquier cosa pero sepan que no están haciendo un hack están haciendo una asquerosidad)
(Mentira me piden ayuda cualquier cosa pero sepan que no están haciendo un hack están haciendo una asquerosidad)
December 4, 2025 at 1:36 PM
Chiques si programan en JavaScript y usan setTimeout para modificar la cola de tareas del engine del lenguaje sepan que soy su enemigo.
(Mentira me piden ayuda cualquier cosa pero sepan que no están haciendo un hack están haciendo una asquerosidad)
(Mentira me piden ayuda cualquier cosa pero sepan que no están haciendo un hack están haciendo una asquerosidad)
Looks like the problem is with fetch, not with "use cache".
It seems that the code github.com/vercel/next.... could potentially contain an unfulfilled Promise, which is why the rest of the finally clauses are never called (like in scr 1).
Because the code on skr 2 is working
It seems that the code github.com/vercel/next.... could potentially contain an unfulfilled Promise, which is why the rest of the finally clauses are never called (like in scr 1).
Because the code on skr 2 is working
November 30, 2025 at 10:19 AM
Looks like the problem is with fetch, not with "use cache".
It seems that the code github.com/vercel/next.... could potentially contain an unfulfilled Promise, which is why the rest of the finally clauses are never called (like in scr 1).
Because the code on skr 2 is working
It seems that the code github.com/vercel/next.... could potentially contain an unfulfilled Promise, which is why the rest of the finally clauses are never called (like in scr 1).
Because the code on skr 2 is working
❌ If you unit-test a React 19 app, there’s a good chance a chunk of your CI time is being wasted on… 😴 setTimeout.
Wait, what? Yes!
React 19 introduced a minimum delay for showing a Suspense fallback, and hardcoded (!) it to 300ms.
Just 3 tests can waste almost 1 second on absolutely nothing!
Wait, what? Yes!
React 19 introduced a minimum delay for showing a Suspense fallback, and hardcoded (!) it to 300ms.
Just 3 tests can waste almost 1 second on absolutely nothing!
November 17, 2025 at 2:15 PM
❌ If you unit-test a React 19 app, there’s a good chance a chunk of your CI time is being wasted on… 😴 setTimeout.
Wait, what? Yes!
React 19 introduced a minimum delay for showing a Suspense fallback, and hardcoded (!) it to 300ms.
Just 3 tests can waste almost 1 second on absolutely nothing!
Wait, what? Yes!
React 19 introduced a minimum delay for showing a Suspense fallback, and hardcoded (!) it to 300ms.
Just 3 tests can waste almost 1 second on absolutely nothing!
setTimeout calls also become 2× slower if you have previously set ~750 timers (doesn’t matter whether they already fired):
November 10, 2025 at 4:58 PM
setTimeout calls also become 2× slower if you have previously set ~750 timers (doesn’t matter whether they already fired):
Okay, I noticed that I cannot repro these slow setTimeouts outside of React / TanStack Query.
So I tried to profile this, and apparently setTimeout calls are much (10×) slower if you do them deep within a call stack (eg React’s recursivelyTraversePassiveMountEffects)? bsky.app/profile/did:...
So I tried to profile this, and apparently setTimeout calls are much (10×) slower if you do them deep within a call stack (eg React’s recursivelyTraversePassiveMountEffects)? bsky.app/profile/did:...
Okay, so this is pretty wild: apparently, in Chromium, the deeper you are in the call stack, the slower your `setTimeout()` calls become?
gist.github.com/iamakulov/85...
gist.github.com/iamakulov/85...
November 10, 2025 at 5:06 PM
Okay, I noticed that I cannot repro these slow setTimeouts outside of React / TanStack Query.
So I tried to profile this, and apparently setTimeout calls are much (10×) slower if you do them deep within a call stack (eg React’s recursivelyTraversePassiveMountEffects)? bsky.app/profile/did:...
So I tried to profile this, and apparently setTimeout calls are much (10×) slower if you do them deep within a call stack (eg React’s recursivelyTraversePassiveMountEffects)? bsky.app/profile/did:...
Why are native setTimeout and clearTimeout calls so expensive? Like, here it takes 1.5 ms. What’s the technical reason it’s so slow?
Just 100-200 of those in a row (trivial if you’re mounting a bunch of React components that set timers) will easily block the page.
Just 100-200 of those in a row (trivial if you’re mounting a bunch of React components that set timers) will easily block the page.
November 9, 2025 at 10:19 PM
Why are native setTimeout and clearTimeout calls so expensive? Like, here it takes 1.5 ms. What’s the technical reason it’s so slow?
Just 100-200 of those in a row (trivial if you’re mounting a bunch of React components that set timers) will easily block the page.
Just 100-200 of those in a row (trivial if you’re mounting a bunch of React components that set timers) will easily block the page.
reading up on "releasing zalgo" i get the problem but existing apis already allow you to do this easily:
```js
fn zalgo(ms, cb) {
if (ms === 0) cb();
else setTimeout(cb, ms);
}
```
Adding more ways to introduce this footgun seems bad but should we not also trust developers with perf features?
```js
fn zalgo(ms, cb) {
if (ms === 0) cb();
else setTimeout(cb, ms);
}
```
Adding more ways to introduce this footgun seems bad but should we not also trust developers with perf features?
November 6, 2025 at 8:47 AM
reading up on "releasing zalgo" i get the problem but existing apis already allow you to do this easily:
```js
fn zalgo(ms, cb) {
if (ms === 0) cb();
else setTimeout(cb, ms);
}
```
Adding more ways to introduce this footgun seems bad but should we not also trust developers with perf features?
```js
fn zalgo(ms, cb) {
if (ms === 0) cb();
else setTimeout(cb, ms);
}
```
Adding more ways to introduce this footgun seems bad but should we not also trust developers with perf features?
Working on a little Halloween game that is a rework of a previous memory game I made.
Was losing my mind why it wouldn't trigger game over when two pairs were found.
Turns out I had typed it wrong. Object.value() instead of Object.values() so it was always undefined.
Mondays, right!?
Was losing my mind why it wouldn't trigger game over when two pairs were found.
Turns out I had typed it wrong. Object.value() instead of Object.values() so it was always undefined.
Mondays, right!?
![Javascript code is as follows:
if (name1 === name2) {
if(killers.includes(name1)){
matchedKillers[name1]++;
}
const totalKillerPairs = Object.values(matchedKillers).filter(count => count >= 2).length
if (totalKillerPairs == 2) {
setTimeout(() => {
alert(`You got caught!`);
resetGame();
}, 500);
}](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:elwt26habreytri5wmg2tgir/bafkreihjyc6tdimek5ornqukudzanwphafpchrpnlawt4egz2hzy6p47ga@jpeg)
October 27, 2025 at 3:57 PM
Working on a little Halloween game that is a rework of a previous memory game I made.
Was losing my mind why it wouldn't trigger game over when two pairs were found.
Turns out I had typed it wrong. Object.value() instead of Object.values() so it was always undefined.
Mondays, right!?
Was losing my mind why it wouldn't trigger game over when two pairs were found.
Turns out I had typed it wrong. Object.value() instead of Object.values() so it was always undefined.
Mondays, right!?
!checkin for Class 35 at #100Devs. Went through promises & async/await. Learned that setTimeout(), setInterval(), fetch() and THE DOM are not JavaScript. They're web APIs!
Finally started backend with Node.
#webdev #javascript @nodejs.org
Finally started backend with Node.
#webdev #javascript @nodejs.org
October 15, 2025 at 2:48 AM
!checkin for Class 35 at #100Devs. Went through promises & async/await. Learned that setTimeout(), setInterval(), fetch() and THE DOM are not JavaScript. They're web APIs!
Finally started backend with Node.
#webdev #javascript @nodejs.org
Finally started backend with Node.
#webdev #javascript @nodejs.org
Also, the nodejs typing pollution rarely comes up unless you do something like `settimeout`.
September 19, 2024 at 1:28 PM
Also, the nodejs typing pollution rarely comes up unless you do something like `settimeout`.
you can write a script to do it using setTimeout and bsky api, not hard honestly
October 23, 2024 at 10:29 AM
you can write a script to do it using setTimeout and bsky api, not hard honestly
Watched the event loop video again today. Sometimes it's just good to refresh.
setTimeout(cb, 0) went so hard back in angular 1.6 days.
setTimeout(cb, 0) went so hard back in angular 1.6 days.
November 26, 2024 at 4:16 AM
Watched the event loop video again today. Sometimes it's just good to refresh.
setTimeout(cb, 0) went so hard back in angular 1.6 days.
setTimeout(cb, 0) went so hard back in angular 1.6 days.
Maybe. Only if the async was backed by Suspense data loading. If it was just await setTimeout followed by setting stage, then yeah it would “tear”
September 16, 2025 at 1:52 AM
Maybe. Only if the async was backed by Suspense data loading. If it was just await setTimeout followed by setting stage, then yeah it would “tear”
It kind of makes sense but it's also deeply annoying. Racing against setTimeout it is then I guess
September 23, 2025 at 7:43 PM
It kind of makes sense but it's also deeply annoying. Racing against setTimeout it is then I guess
2025 new years resolution
await new Promise(resolve => setTimeout(resolve, 31536000000))
await new Promise(resolve => setTimeout(resolve, 31536000000))
December 31, 2024 at 5:19 PM
2025 new years resolution
await new Promise(resolve => setTimeout(resolve, 31536000000))
await new Promise(resolve => setTimeout(resolve, 31536000000))
There's a lot more to a local-first app than just a sync engine.
For example, as I experimented building more complex apps, I soon realized I also needed to manage background tasks more intelligently: `setTimeout` and yolo just isn't good enough!
So now we have TinyTick 🤣
For example, as I experimented building more complex apps, I soon realized I also needed to manage background tasks more intelligently: `setTimeout` and yolo just isn't good enough!
So now we have TinyTick 🤣
🎉 Welcome to our new sister project: TinyTick!
Most intelligent and local-first web applications need background tasks like fetching, syncing, and cache eviction.
But managing them - with scheduling, failure handling, retries, and so on - can be a pain.
Most intelligent and local-first web applications need background tasks like fetching, syncing, and cache eviction.
But managing them - with scheduling, failure handling, retries, and so on - can be a pain.
March 13, 2025 at 7:47 PM
There's a lot more to a local-first app than just a sync engine.
For example, as I experimented building more complex apps, I soon realized I also needed to manage background tasks more intelligently: `setTimeout` and yolo just isn't good enough!
So now we have TinyTick 🤣
For example, as I experimented building more complex apps, I soon realized I also needed to manage background tasks more intelligently: `setTimeout` and yolo just isn't good enough!
So now we have TinyTick 🤣
In Angular development, handling user input efficiently is crucial for optimizing performance and user experience. Two common techniques for delaying function execution are debounce (often used with RxJS) and setTimeout. While they both introduce a delay before executing a function
Stop Using setTimeout!
In Angular development, handling user input efficiently is crucial for optimizing performance and user experience. Two common techniques…
buff.ly
April 14, 2025 at 2:30 AM
In Angular development, handling user input efficiently is crucial for optimizing performance and user experience. Two common techniques for delaying function execution are debounce (often used with RxJS) and setTimeout. While they both introduce a delay before executing a function
TIL: I can use MutationObserver in content scripts to react to dynamic page changes without polling. So much cleaner than setTimeout loops. Why did it take me so long to discover this?
August 10, 2025 at 4:29 AM
TIL: I can use MutationObserver in content scripts to react to dynamic page changes without polling. So much cleaner than setTimeout loops. Why did it take me so long to discover this?
Fucking just realized I used an old file to show this specific section off lol, here's the actual functional one.
The div.append(video) goes inside the setTimeout(), the video.style.width & height are 120 and 240, and I got rid of the video.style.opacity stuff because that wasn't working right.
The div.append(video) goes inside the setTimeout(), the video.style.width & height are 120 and 240, and I got rid of the video.style.opacity stuff because that wasn't working right.
November 25, 2024 at 6:54 AM
Fucking just realized I used an old file to show this specific section off lol, here's the actual functional one.
The div.append(video) goes inside the setTimeout(), the video.style.width & height are 120 and 240, and I got rid of the video.style.opacity stuff because that wasn't working right.
The div.append(video) goes inside the setTimeout(), the video.style.width & height are 120 and 240, and I got rid of the video.style.opacity stuff because that wasn't working right.
So I used a `setTimeout`, which was the style at the time. Now, to power a browser you had to turn a crank, and in those days you got 5 frames to a turn—"unwind the stack," you’d say!
Now, where were we? Oh yeah: the important thing was that I used a `setTimeout`, which was the style at the time.
Now, where were we? Oh yeah: the important thing was that I used a `setTimeout`, which was the style at the time.
May 1, 2025 at 3:25 PM
So I used a `setTimeout`, which was the style at the time. Now, to power a browser you had to turn a crank, and in those days you got 5 frames to a turn—"unwind the stack," you’d say!
Now, where were we? Oh yeah: the important thing was that I used a `setTimeout`, which was the style at the time.
Now, where were we? Oh yeah: the important thing was that I used a `setTimeout`, which was the style at the time.
clearsky is clearly perfect and there is definitely no way to bypass the message and blur they add when you try to look at someone who requested to obscure their records from unauthenticated users, you know other than
![window.addEventListener('load', function ()
{
setTimeout(function()
{
document.getElementsByClassName("obscure-public-records-overlay-content")[0].remove()
document.getElementsByClassName("history-panel-container history-panel-container-obscurePublicRecords")[0].classList.remove("history-panel-container-obscurePublicRecords")
}, 2000)
})](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:ocigo7hqqucgr5qfj2tehz5q/bafkreihcuzimprilawpbvnjorxupowp7tnmqyb76vpyagsbpq5z2vppoya@jpeg)
March 22, 2025 at 11:02 AM
clearsky is clearly perfect and there is definitely no way to bypass the message and blur they add when you try to look at someone who requested to obscure their records from unauthenticated users, you know other than
Gemini also nailed in a few seconds writing the script to verify the behavior that would have taken me a good 5 minutes to iron out. I asked it for a rewrite with an event emitter, but in hindsight its first try was actually better and proves the point sufficiently
gist.github.com/david-crespo...
gist.github.com/david-crespo...
May 12, 2025 at 5:28 PM
Gemini also nailed in a few seconds writing the script to verify the behavior that would have taken me a good 5 minutes to iron out. I asked it for a rewrite with an event emitter, but in hindsight its first try was actually better and proves the point sufficiently
gist.github.com/david-crespo...
gist.github.com/david-crespo...
The alternative (if the links weren't filtered) would have been so elegant my friends, it would have worked on any page. #JavaScript I'm livid. #webdev #oc
![(function() {
const profile_regex = new RegExp('^\/profile\/[^/]+$');
// via: https://www.basedash.com/blog/waiting-for-an-element-to-exist-with-javascript
function onElementAvailable(selector, callback, timeout = 10000) {
let timeoutId;
const observer = new MutationObserver(mutations => {
const element = [...document.querySelectorAll(selector)].pop();
if (element) {
clearTimeout(timeoutId);
observer.disconnect();
callback(element);
}
});
observer.observe(document.documentElement, { childList: true, subtree: true });
timeoutId = setTimeout(() => {
observer.disconnect();
callback(null);
}, timeout);
}
function sweepSkinks(){
let skinks = document.querySelectorAll('a[role="link"]');
let profile_skinks = [...skinks].filter(n => profile_regex.test(n.getAttribute('href')));
profile_skinks.forEach((skink) => {
skink.setAttribute('href', skink + '?skink=media&hot=dog#profilePager-Media');
});
}
function mediaTabClicker(){
if( window.location.hash ){
let testid = window.location.hash.substring(1);
onElementAvailable(`[data-testid="${testid}"]`, (elm) => {
elm.click();
});
}
}
function skeetThinker(){
sweepSkinks();
}
mediaTabClicker();
setInterval(skeetThinker, 1000);
})();](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:ajvg7x77nd5bgy2rhoz7teib/bafkreiheixifuivvjfbiezbj44ii6adamm2hcvk22rc7uvmjomirzbxife@jpeg)
October 25, 2024 at 9:05 AM
The alternative (if the links weren't filtered) would have been so elegant my friends, it would have worked on any page. #JavaScript I'm livid. #webdev #oc