标签：#java

Originally written for bulldo.gs — republished here with the canonical link pointing home. I want to pull live JSON data from an API endpoint directly into a Google Sheet without installing an add-on. // Fetch JSON from an API and write it to the active sheet // Adjust API_URL and the field list to match your endpoint function importJsonFromApi () { var API_URL = ' https://jsonplaceholder.typicode.com/users ' ; var sheet = SpreadsheetApp . getActiveSpreadsheet (). getActiveSheet (); var response = UrlFetchApp . fetch ( API_URL ); var raw = response . getContentText (); var data = JSON . parse ( raw ); var headers = [ ' id ' , ' name ' , ' username ' , ' email ' , ' phone ' ]; var rows = data . map ( function ( obj ) { return headers . map ( function ( key ) { return obj [ key ] || '' ; }); }); sheet . clearContents (); sheet . getRange ( 1 , 1 , 1 , headers . length ). setValues ([ headers ]); sheet . getRange ( 2 , 1 , rows . length , headers . length ). setValues ( rows ); } Why getContentText() comes before JSON.parse UrlFetchApp.fetch() returns an HTTPResponse object, not a string. The first time I skipped getContentText() and passed the response object directly to JSON.parse(), it silently parsed to null and the sheet wrote nothing. You need raw = response.getContentText() to get the actual body as a string, then JSON.parse(raw) turns it into a JavaScript object or array. The URL must be publicly accessible or accept an API key via a query parameter or Authorization header. Add headers like this: UrlFetchApp.fetch(url, { headers: { Authorization: 'Bearer ' + token } }). Apps Script's UrlFetchApp quota is 20,000 calls per day on a free Google account, 100,000 on Workspace. The rectangular array constraint — why setValues fails without mapping setValues() is strict: it requires a 2D array where every row has the same number of columns. If you hand it an array of plain JSON objects, it throws 'The number of rows or columns in the range does not match the number of

Originally written for bulldo.gs — republished here with the canonical link pointing home. I have a spreadsheet of names and email addresses and I want to send each person a personalized message from my Gmail account without copy-pasting or using a paid tool. // Mail merge: Sheet cols A=Name, B=Email, C=Sent // Run from Apps Script; authorize Gmail + Sheets scopes function sendMerge () { var sheet = SpreadsheetApp . getActiveSheet (); var rows = sheet . getDataRange (). getValues (); var quota = MailApp . getRemainingDailyQuota (); var sent = 0 ; for ( var i = 1 ; i < rows . length ; i ++ ) { if ( rows [ i ][ 2 ] === ' Sent ' ) continue ; if ( sent >= quota ) { Logger . log ( ' Quota reached at row ' + ( i + 1 )); break ; } var name = rows [ i ][ 0 ]; var email = rows [ i ][ 1 ]; var subject = ' Hey ' + name + ' , here is your update ' ; var body = ' Hi ' + name + ' , \n\n Your personalized content goes here. \n\n Thanks ' ; MailApp . sendEmail ( email , subject , body ); sheet . getRange ( i + 1 , 3 ). setValue ( ' Sent ' ); sent ++ ; } } Set up your sheet and open the script editor Put names in column A, email addresses in column B, and leave column C blank — the script writes 'Sent' there as it goes. Header row in row 1 is assumed; the loop starts at index 1 (row 2) to skip it. Open the script editor from Extensions > Apps Script, paste the function, and save. The first time you run sendMerge() Google will ask you to authorize two scopes: Sheets (read/write the active spreadsheet) and Gmail (send mail on your behalf). Both are required. If you only see a Sheets prompt, delete the file and re-paste — a cached partial authorization sometimes skips the Gmail scope on older script files. Why the Sent column is the whole point Consumer Google accounts cap at roughly 100 outgoing recipients per 24-hour rolling window via MailApp. If your list has 200 rows and you run the script at 11 pm, it will send 100 and log 'Quota reached at row 101'. Without the Sent check, a sec

Originally written for bulldo.gs — republished here with the canonical link pointing home. I have a Google Sheet with duplicate rows and I want to remove them programmatically, either on demand or on a schedule, without destroying the rest of my data. // removeDuplicates.gs — dedup active sheet, keep first occurrence // Run from Extensions > Apps Script, or bind to a trigger. function removeDuplicateRows () { var sheet = SpreadsheetApp . getActiveSheet (); var data = sheet . getDataRange (). getValues (); var seen = new Set (); var unique = []; for ( var i = 0 ; i < data . length ; i ++ ) { var key = data [ i ]. join ( ' | ' ); if ( ! seen . has ( key )) { seen . add ( key ); unique . push ( data [ i ]); } } sheet . clearContents (); sheet . getRange ( 1 , 1 , unique . length , unique [ 0 ]. length ). setValues ( unique ); } Why rewrite instead of delete The instinct when deduplicating is to loop through the sheet and call deleteRow on each duplicate. That works, but it has a sharp edge: every call to deleteRow shifts all rows below it up by one. If you delete row 3, what was row 4 is now row 3, and your loop index is already pointing at the new row 4. The safe workaround people reach for is iterating bottom-to-top, which works but means holding the full duplicate set in memory anyway, making one API call per deleted row. The approach here sidesteps the problem entirely. Read everything once with getDataRange().getValues() — a single API call that returns a 2D array. Build the deduplicated array in JavaScript using a Set to track which row fingerprints you have already seen. Then clear the sheet and write the result back with one setValues call. Two API calls total, regardless of how many duplicates you had. For a 10,000-row sheet, this is the difference between a script that finishes in two seconds and one that times out at the six-minute Apps Script execution limit. The row key is built with data[i].join('|'). The pipe character works as a separator in practice; i

A decision memo for anyone staring at their package.json and wondering. Most arguments for leaving your SPA framework center on the upgrade treadmill — the endless cycle of major-version migrations, dependency churn, and build-tool turnover. That argument is real but incomplete, and on its own it has never been decisive: every framework shop has learned to live with the treadmill. There's a stronger case, built on four pillars that compound with each other. First, total cost of ownership : vanilla JavaScript on the web platform has unusual TCO properties, dominated by a depreciation curve that is nearly flat. Code written against the platform does not rot, because its substrate does not change. Over long horizons, this single property outweighs almost every per-feature productivity argument in a framework's favor. Second, the labor market : the pool of people who can work on vanilla JavaScript is not a niche within the frontend market — it is the entire frontend market, plus most of the backend market. Every framework developer is, underneath, a JavaScript developer. The reverse is not true. If you hire for a specific framework, you're hiring from a subset while telling yourself you're hiring from the mainstream. Third, AI leverage : engineers now produce a growing share of code with AI assistance, and the economics of that assistance differ sharply by target. The web platform is a small, stable, exhaustively documented body of knowledge; a framework ecosystem is a large, fast-mutating one whose training data is perpetually stale. AI coding tools are measurably more reliable on the former. As AI-assisted development becomes the dominant mode of production, the substrate that AI handles best becomes the cheaper substrate — and the gap widens every year the platform stays still while frameworks move. Fourth, architecture : porting to Web Components is not a transliteration of the same design into different syntax. The platform pushes toward a genuinely different archi

TL;DR: HTML-first means shipping real, server-rendered content before any JavaScript runs, then adding scripts only where they earn their place. In 2026 this approach is winning again, not out of nostalgia, but because the median mobile page now ships around 646 KB of JavaScript, fewer than half of mobile sites pass Core Web Vitals, and the browser already does natively what many sites still pull in libraries for. For most business websites, progressive enhancement is faster to ship, cheaper to run, and easier to keep alive. Sometime in 2026, "just use HTML" stopped being a contrarian take. I noticed it first in my own client work, not in a conference talk. The sites that start close to the platform, plain HTML, forms, links, server rendering, and add JavaScript only where it genuinely helps, are the ones that launch faster, load cleaner, and generate fewer confused support messages two months later. This is not anti-JavaScript. It is a reaction to a decade of reaching for a framework before asking whether the project needed one. The pendulum is swinging back toward the browser, and the numbers explain why. What HTML-first actually means (and why it is not 2009 web design) The fastest way to misunderstand this is to picture table layouts and inline styles. That is not it. HTML-first is an order of operations. You build a page that is complete and usable as server-rendered HTML, then you enhance it. The content is readable before a single script loads. The form submits even if JavaScript never arrives. This is the old idea of progressive enhancement , applied deliberately with modern tools instead of by accident. There is a small but real movement around this now. The HTML First community manifesto argues, fairly, that the platform has far more capability than most teams use. You do not have to agree with every line of it to notice the shift. The point is not to ban JavaScript. The point is to stop treating it as the default starting material for every page. The 2026

GitHub热门项目 | ✯ 可直连访问的电视/广播图标库与相关工具项目 ✯ 🔕 永久免费 直连访问 完整开源 不断完善的台标 支持IPv4/IPv6双栈访问 🔕 | Stars: 28,119 | 11 stars today | 语言: JavaScript

GitHub热门项目 | Setup and manage header bidding advertising partners without writing code or confusing line items. Prebid.js is open source and free. | Stars: 1,581 | 0 stars today | 语言: JavaScript

GitHub热门项目 | Datadog APM client for Node.js | Stars: 813 | 0 stars today | 语言: JavaScript

GitHub热门项目 | CRS-自建Claude Code镜像，一站式开源中转服务，让 Claude、OpenAI、Gemini、Droid 订阅统一接入，支持拼车共享，更高效分摊成本，原生工具无缝使用。 | Stars: 12,064 | 12 stars today | 语言: JavaScript

GitHub热门项目 | An open-source JavaScript library for world-class 3D globes and maps 🌎 | Stars: 15,367 | 2 stars today | 语言: JavaScript

GitHub热门项目 | 一分钟搭建影视站，支持Vercel/Docker等部署方式 | Stars: 13,698 | 9 stars today | 语言: JavaScript

Google's Angular team has released a repository called angular/skills, focusing on Agent Skills that enhance AI coding agents' ability to write modern Angular code. The repository includes skills for generating code and scaffolding applications, reinforcing current Angular conventions. It serves as a snapshot, aiming to improve AI suggestions by providing updated context. By Daniel Curtis

TL;DR: A LinkedIn outreach pipeline is a background worker that signs in with your own session, opens profiles, sends connection requests and messages on a schedule you control, and can post content straight to your feed. The hard was staying invisible to LinkedIn's detection. We got to our nineteenth build in about two weeks. Along the way, the session kept dying after three profiles (a device fingerprint mismatch), the stealth layer turned out to be detectable on its own, an authenticated proxy refused to connect, and Chrome froze in ways no timeout caught. This is every failure and the fix that finally held. We built a LinkedIn marketing pipeline inside Ozigi because our own go-to-market runs on it. I didn't just want it to be another tool; I needed it to send real messages to real people without getting my personal account flagged. The very first version we built worked for sourcing and reaching three leads, then the session died. The second version got past that and froze instead. This pattern repeated for two weeks and led us from building v1 of our LinkedIn worker to the current version 26. This article is like a cleaned-up version of our build log for educational purposes. If you are trying to reach people on LinkedIn from code, you will hit most of these walls in roughly this order. I will name the exact failure each time, because "it stopped working" helped me precisely never. What Does a LinkedIn Outreach Pipeline Actually Do? A complete LinkedIn outreach pipeline does four jobs: It signs in with your session cookie so LinkedIn sees you, not a script. It opens a lead's profile. It sends a connection request or a message, depending on whether you are already a first-degree connection. And it can publish a post to your feed. The first three are outreach. The fourth is content. They share the same infrastructure, which matters later. None of these look overly complicated logic. You click a button, type into a box, press send. But the reason this turned into

A few days ago, I shared an article: You Don't Need Another Agent. You Need a Linter. Then I did what I do with anything I write: shared it around — a few publications, a few channels. Two reasons: First, feedback. I'd genuinely rather get roasted and fix my blind spots than stay comfortable and wrong. Second, let's be honest: reach. Every writer enjoys seeing a few more views. Most of the responses were positive. One wasn't. A publication rejected it with the reason: LOW_QUALITY Fair enough. It means there's room for improvement. Funny enough, my caffeinated 1 AM brain disagreed. Then it did what every developer does when someone says "this isn't good enough." It took that personally. So I went back and reread the article. And after the initial ego check, I realized something serious: The article talked in detail about ESLint, why it matters more in an AI-assisted world than ever. What it did not do was answer the question that actually matters: What is ESLint, how does it work, and why has half the JavaScript ecosystem quietly built its quality process around it? So let's fix that. Now, this isn't a sequel to my last piece about untangling vibe-coded code. It stands on its own — one thing, done properly . A complete teardown of ESLint: What it is How it works internally Why companies use it as a quality gate The different classes of problems it solves How plugins work How to write your own rules Where it fails Why it still beats many AI-based review systems Fair warning. This article is going to be technical. There will be syntax trees. There will be compiler concepts. There will be enough JavaScript internals to make frontend developers slightly uncomfortable. I'll try my best to keep it readable not letting it turn into another manual - which nobody finishes. Let's start with the question most people never ask. What Is ESLint Actually Doing? Most developers describe ESLint like this: It checks code for mistakes. Technically true. Also completely useless. That's

When code becomes cheaper, what still makes an engineer valuable? Recently, while writing my cover letter for remote roles and Upwork projects, I asked myself a very direct question: Why should a remote team or client choose me, especially in the AI era? I do not think the answer should be: “Because I am the strongest engineer technically.” That is not how I want to position myself. What I want to become is this: A backend engineer who can turn unclear business problems into reliable, maintainable systems. AI is making implementation faster. It can generate code, explain technologies, and provide alternatives. At the same time, remote work and platforms like Upwork make competition more global. We are not only competing with engineers nearby, but also with engineers from everywhere. If the only question is “Who knows more frameworks, patterns, or tools?”, many ordinary engineers may feel hopeless. But I believe there is another path. In real systems, code is only part of the work. Someone still needs to understand the business workflow. Someone still needs to define what “correct” means. Someone still needs to identify risks, edge cases, performance concerns, and reliability boundaries. My usual way of working starts from these questions: What is the real requirement? What does correctness mean in this workflow? What data must stay consistent? What edge cases could break the process? What performance or reliability signals should be protected? Where should the module boundary be? Who should orchestrate the main flow, and who should act as collaborators? This “orchestrator + collaborators” thinking helps me keep the main business process clear. The orchestrator owns the workflow. The collaborators handle specific responsibilities such as validation, translation, persistence, messaging, or external integration. I also use AI in this process, but not only to generate code. I use it to challenge my assumptions, explore alternatives, find missing cases, improve naming, r

A few days ago I finished benchmarking something I've been building - a cache-aware, stable, histogram-based sorting algorithm I'm calling BusSort . The results surprised even me. At 100 million elements, it runs ~2x faster than Java's Dual-Pivot Quicksort on random data - while being stable . Dual-Pivot QS is not. The Problem With Quicksort at Scale Quicksort-based algorithms partition elements with random writes across the entire array. At large scales this causes cache thrashing - elements are being written to memory locations all over the place, constantly missing L1 and L2 cache. The larger the array, the worse it gets. The Core Idea Instead of scattering elements globally, BusSort processes data in L1 cache-sized chunks - 4096 integers (~16KB). For each chunk, it does 4 passes: PASS 1 - Scan left-to-right, compute bucket for each element, build a local histogram PASS 2 - Compute local prefix sums (bucket positions within the chunk) PASS 3 - Scatter into a local grouped buffer - because this buffer is L1-sized, all random writes stay in cache ✅ PASS 4 - Copy each bucket's portion to its correct global position With 128-way splitting , recursion depth stays at just ~4 levels even for 100M elements. Base case: Insertion Sort for ≤ 1024 elements. On the benchmark machine (i5-1135G7, 48KB L1 data cache): 4096 × 3 × 4 bytes = 49,152 bytes ≈ 48KB The three working arrays fit exactly in L1. Not a coincidence. Benchmark Results Tested against Arrays.sort(int[]) - Java's Dual-Pivot Quicksort . n = 100,000,000 | Java 17 | i5-1135G7 @ 2.40GHz Input Type BusSort Dual-Pivot QS Ratio Random 3991ms 8604ms ~2x Sorted 57ms 104ms ~2x Reverse 280ms 166ms 0.6x Nearly Sorted 2452ms 2789ms ~1.1x Duplicates 712ms 2242ms ~2.4x Few Duplicates 1295ms 3185ms ~2.3x All Same 51ms 32ms 0.6x Clustered 1419ms 2242ms ~1.6x Consistently faster on most input types. Stable. Zero comparison overhead. The two losses (Reverse, All Same) are where Dual-Pivot QS has structural advantages - run detecti

Floating-point addition isn't associative. For a corporate inventory with tens of thousands of rows, naive summation drifts — and the number you disclose depends on row order. Here's why, and the fix. Here's a result that should bother anyone building carbon software. Take a corporate emissions inventory — tens of thousands of line items, each a number in tonnes CO₂e. Sum it. Now sort the same rows differently and sum again. The totals don't match. Not by much — maybe the third or fourth decimal place — but they don't match, and nothing in your code changed except the order. If you've never seen this, open a console: 0.1 + 0.2 === 0.3 // false That's the same bug, scaled up to a reporting deliverable. Why order changes the answer IEEE 754 doubles have 52 bits of mantissa. That's about 15–16 significant decimal digits of precision — generous, until you add numbers of very different magnitudes. When you add a small number to a large running total, the small number gets shifted right to line up the exponents before the addition happens. Bits that fall off the end of the mantissa are gone. Add a 0.0001 tCO₂e line to a running total of 80000.0 and there simply aren't enough mantissa bits to hold both the 80,000 and the 0.0001 — the small value is partially or completely swallowed. Float addition, as a result, isn't associative. (a + b) + c is not guaranteed to equal a + (b + c) . Sum your rows largest-first and the small values vanish early against a big accumulator. Sum smallest-first and they accumulate into something large enough to survive. Same data, different total. Here's the effect, deliberately constructed to be visible: const big = 80000 ; const smalls = Array ( 50000 ). fill ( 0.0001 ); // small values first, then the big one let a = 0 ; for ( const x of [... smalls , big ]) a += x ; // big value first, then the smalls let b = 0 ; for ( const x of [ big , ... smalls ]) b += x ; console . log ( a ); // 80004.99999999... console . log ( b ); // 80004.99999999...

Every few months, a post goes viral: "Please stop using [perfectly good tool]." This time it's lucide-react. And honestly? The take is lazy What's the actual problem? Nothing. The library is actively maintained, tree-shakable, TypeScript-friendly, and has 1000+ consistent icons. A new icon library dropped? Cool. That doesn't make this one broken. Tools don't expire — context does Before switching anything in production, ask: Is it maintained? ✅ Does it solve my problem? ✅ Is my team comfortable with it? ✅ Then keep using it. Real usage — still clean in 2026 import { Search , Bell , User } from ' lucide-react ' ; export default function Navbar () { return ( < nav > < Search size = { 20 } /> < Bell size = { 20 } strokeWidth = { 1.5 } /> < User size = { 20 } color = "#6366f1" /> </ nav > ); } Tree-shaking works perfectly — only Search, Bell, and User are bundled. Not the entire library. When you should switch Unpatched security vulnerability Repo abandoned for 2+ years Bundle size issue you've actually measured If none of these apply, you're switching for hype, not logic. The real issue "Please stop using X" posts get engagement. Developers see them, second-guess stable choices, and waste hours migrating things that weren't broken. Don't let LinkedIn trends drive your architecture. Build products. Not migrations.

Two related, Oracle-backed projects published opposing policies on open-source contributions created with generative AI: The OpenJDK Governing Board approved an interim policy prohibiting such contributions, while the Coding Assistants policy from GraalVM permits them. Both projects require contributors to sign the same Oracle Contributor Agreement (OCA) for intellectual property. By Karsten Silz

Parallel AI Coding with Git Worktrees: Run Multiple Agents Without Conflicts Most parallel AI development problems stem from a single architectural mistake: multiple agents sharing the same working directory. Teams spin up three Claude Code instances, point them at the same project folder, and watch as file writes collide, branch checkouts interrupt each other, and lock files corrupt. The symptom looks like a race condition. The root cause is filesystem design. Git worktrees solve this by giving each agent its own isolated working directory while sharing a single .git repository. This distinction is critical. Developers get parallel execution without the storage overhead of full clones, and agents operate on separate branches without stepping on each other's file handles. The pattern has existed since Git 2.5, but AI coding workflows finally make it essential infrastructure. The Collision Problem: Why Multiple AI Agents Can't Share a Working Directory When you run git checkout feature-A in a directory where another process is reading files, the filesystem state changes underneath that reader. The other process doesn't see atomic transitions—it sees partial writes, missing files, and inconsistent dependency graphs. TypeScript compilers fail with "Cannot find module" errors. Dev servers crash because watched files disappeared mid-read. Lock files from package managers become corrupted when two agents run npm install simultaneously on different branches with different dependency trees. The obvious solution—staggering agent execution so only one runs at a time—defeats the purpose of parallel development. Teams that try this pattern end up with AI agents waiting in queue, each one blocking the next until it finishes. The bottleneck shifts from human typing speed to serial execution, and the productivity gains evaporate. Full repository clones work but waste disk space. A 2GB monorepo cloned five times for five agents consumes 10GB of redundant Git objects. Sparse checkou