jdkoeck

I just append « talk », it works pretty well.

AI;DR

You can inspect a Lit component directly in Chrome, it’s just a custom element. No need for a browser dev extension. You can use this custom element from React or any other JS framework. You can also use this custom element in a server-rendered template, no need for any custom SSR setup. Feel close to the platform yet?

Web components are intentionally low-level, they’re not really meant to be used directly. You should see them more as performant, interoperable building blocks. Have you tried lit?

> Reading the code does not mean you understand the code.

Reading the code may not be enough to understand the behaviour of your program, but believing you can understand the behaviour of a program without at least reading the high level code is truly silly.

(by high level, I mean the code living in the higher layers - of course we don't often read the code of the generated assembly, or the interpreter, or the browser, but that's because they're reliable abstractions, unlike prompts!)

Rails is the most cult-like, anti-learning, anti-choice and even anti-engineering technology I have ever used. It does NOT want you to make your own choices, it does NOT want you to decouple from the framework, it does NOT want you to grow. It’s frightening.

I mean, in an app that uses Rails by-the-book, you won’t even find a class instantiation. No call to new. You won’t find a class that does not inherit from a framework bass class either. The framework handles everything, don’t worry.

The one thing that gets with those PRs is that they want you to read stuff they haven’t even read themselves! Yeah, no.

Two years ago? I don’t get it, coding agents have been compelling for barely a year.

I trailed off a few lines into the README. No human ever edited any of this. « LLM detected, project rejected ».

If only!

Did not know belt and braces was a saying in English! I learned something today.

> Good models these days spit out architecture and code fairly indistinguishable from your average developer.

Emphatically, no. It’s way too complex, every time. Ceinture et bretelles, as we say in French.

My favorite thing is leaving the skin and slicing them. Each slice has the perfect amount of skin and pulp, it’s crunchy, it’s heaven!

Did the author really put significant effort here? The LLM speak suggests the opposite.

This is obviously written by an LLM. Should we flag such content?

Same here, what if the internals get the same absence of care? No thank you.

It’s even worse, the opposite is actually true (but it’s a slight effect).

If he’s the father, he may have no involvement in the logistics whatsoever. Especially if he has a large family.

How is having numerous kids correlated with being a good parent? If anything, the reverse is probably true.

15% at 45? You better have a source for that number.

I love solid, but this article is very obviously AI-written. I too find it impenetrable.

According to your logic, front end apps thus have three rendering engines: the server (rendering json), the browser, the JavaScript framework. Count the rendering engines like you want, the point still stands: server rendered apps are architecturally simpler.

There is no one size fits all solution. Frontend-heavy projects have their place, server-rendered ones too.

Fascist leadership?

> While I don’t read the implementation of anything any more unless there’s a hard algorithmic problem, I do make an effort to read and document APIs thoroughly.

I have some questions.

Are you doing this for client-facing production code?

It seems you believe painting over APIs with some amount of documentation will guarantee the implementation is correct and well designed. Am I misreading that?

You say you still read code when code is « algorithmically hard ». How do you define that?

Software systems have requirements that are essential but not algorithmically hard. For instance, access control in a web application must be thorough and cover all REST resources. How do you know the implementation has the desired properties if you don’t read the code?

Do you have tests? How do you know they’re correct if you don’t read the code? Moreover, how do know if their coverage is sufficient if you don’t read the code?

Do you refactor code or is that not needed anymore?

I don’t understand your answer to the question of why anyone would publish a library if no one reads code anymore. « For the exact same reasons as before ». How so? This isn’t making sense.

> Your job is to produce the best working result.

This is as misguided as « don’t make mistakes ». Do not expect good decisions from something that does not feel the pain of bad decisions.

This is so obviously written by AI that it’s turning me off the whole thing.

Last time I used it, it was a a flicker fest. Has it been fixed?

Just look up how cameras give uber drivers protection against wrongful accusations and go off your high horse.

I’ve had plenty of uber drivers with a camera inside the car. I was not offended by their seeming lack of trust. They had stories to tell that made me realize these cameras were very much needed.

A study from 2025. Might as well be from five years ago.