nocman

nothing awkward about it.

IMHO, It's a better time than ever to develop a new IDE. Just make one that cares deeply about performance (i.e loads instantly, and always has a snappy response). Make features easy to control. Allow me to turn on only the things I care about and to shut the rest off.

I can't even remember the last time I was impressed by the speed of an IDE, though we have more computing power now than ever. I'd love to see someone new come in and wipe the floor with all of the current contenders.

I don't think the likelyhood of "electricity and Internet, running water grocery stores" being pulled out from underneath you (either by long term failure or prohibitive cost changes) is anywhere near as high as it is for subscription-based AI tools (at least not in the US).

I think you are making far too wide-sweeping statements. I think most people here probably agree that if Anthropic drops Claude Code from the Pro plan after people have paid with the understanding that it is part of the package, that would be wrong, and they deserve to lose business over it. However, there are plenty of situations where A/B testing is entirely benign, and I would not have any problem with a company doing that testing without getting consent first. Every form of A/B testing is not done just for the gain of the company doing the testing.

> No one has ever made a purchasing decision based on how good your code is.

absolutely false.

> The general public does not care about anything other than the capabilities and limitations of your product.

also false.

People may not know that the reason they like your product is because the code is so good, but everyone likes software that is mostly free from bugs, performs extremely well, helps them do their work quickly, and is obviously created by people the care deeply about the quality of the product they produce (you know, the kind that acutally read bug reports, and fix problems quickly).

The longer your product exists the more important the quality of the code will be. This obsession so many have with "get it out the door in 5 seconds" is only going to continue the parade of garbage software that is slow as a dog, and uses gigabytes of memory to perform simple tasks.

You don't have to pick on camp over the other. In my opinion, if you want to make a good product for a user, you should also treat the code you produce for them as your craft. There is no substitute for high quality work.

I came here to say something similar.

I somehow doubt there's a team at Google dedicated to roleplaying the nightmares of all living people :-D

When I saw your user name, I was like "I wonder if that's the C++ s11n guy", and sure enough, confirmed it by viewing your profile.

Glad to see you're still alive and kickin' -- hope you are doing well, despite life's challenges.

Yeah, I've never really been at all offended by the "eating your own dogfood" phrase, because I always saw that as being the point also.

I must admit, however, that the title of this article was too crass for me. I came very close to not reading it at all just because of the title. In my opinion, the article would be better served by something else, but I'm just not a big fan of bathroom humor in general.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with the word picture that was used. I'd advise against assuming the worst possible interpretation of someone else's words (especially online). Most of us probably do that at least sometimes (present company included), but it would be much better to give people the benefit of the doubt. In this case, I think it is fair to assume that the original poster was just saying that he wouldn't let them try to get away and not actually deal with the problem -- much as a border collie prevents other animals from straying from the group, keeping them where they need to be.

There is no need to assume that they meant that the others in the meeting were less important or less intelligent, or whatever. They were, perhaps, just less interested in dealing with the problem.

> they bother to have a Klingon language consultant on staff

I realize there's a fair bit of money to be made, and also that many people are super invested in their favorite science fiction series, but the fact that "a Klingon language consultant" is a real thing still makes me think "wow!".

I think it is worth noting that Richard P. Gabriel wrote the forward to the book in question, and he quotes Guy L. Steele in that forward -- from the paper that you are suggesting the author might like.

> - Every day that passes, the gulf between Lisp's tooling and what a typical user expects grows wider. It needs to escape Emacs and SLIME to something that feels complete and polished.

Can you give specific examples of "what a typical user expects" that are missing from Emacs-based programming environments (SLIME, and/or others)? I'm not suggesting there aren't any, I'd just like to know your list.

> Who are making these claims? script kiddies? sr devs? Altman?

AI agents, perhaps? :-D

sounds similar to rdiff-backup ( https://rdiff-backup.net ).

I know some folks that have been using that for a very long time as well.

Good one - made me and a coworker both LOL (in the literal sense) :D

Yeah, I didn't notice where the article was located at first, and I thought that's what it was going to be about also.

Um, please let your comment be sarcastic. It is ... right?

> sed is not "stream editor" as it says above, it's "stream ed"

Well, according to the man page, it is indeed "stream editor":

https://man.cat-v.org/unix_8th/1/sed

I was already aware of its relation to 'ed' (having had to actually use 'ed' in ancient times). However that doesn't change the fact that it does stand for "stream editor".

After reading your post, I thought "That doesn't seem right, I remember it specifically being referred to as 'stream editor'", so I went looking.

> There was strong cultural pressure to be able to write perl in as few bytes as possible

Hard disagree. Many Perl programmers enjoyed engaging in code golf (always just for fun, in my experience), but in my nearly 30 years of programming Perl, I never encountered anything that I would call pressure to do so -- not from anyone.

I don't think in this case that most people who know what Arduino is would be at all mislead by the title. Being "dead" doesn't have to mean that a company ceases to exist. There are plenty of what I would call "dead" companies that still make money every year. "Dead" can be used figuratively. In this case, meaning that though the company continues to exist, the reason for which many people bought their products is now gone.

And Randall deserves EVERY single one of them, IMHO!

Oh, good, I'm not the only one then.

"With traditional solutions (such as OpenVPN / IPSec) starting to run out of steam" -- and then zero explanation or evidence of how that is true.

I can see an argument for IPSec. I haven't used that for many years. However, I see zero evidence that OpenVPN is "running out of steam" in any way shape or form.

I would be interested to know the reasoning behind this. Hopefully the sentiment isn't "this is over five years old so something newer must automatically be better". Pardon me if I am being too cynical, but I've just seen way too much of that recently.

> for me, everything git is a pain point

Yeah, I was looking for something (or "things") specific. An "I hate everything about it" explanation doesn't really compel me to try out the alternative.

> "megamerges" are one such example. ive shared many links, here and in other posts

I read through one megamerge link you shared ( https://v5.chriskrycho.com/journal/jujutsu-megamerges-and-jj... ). So the argument seems to be (forgive me if I'm reading this wrong), if you have multiple versions of a single set of source files that all have differing changes, for you JuJutsu makes it easier (easier then git, that is) to merge them into the final commit you want to end up with. Is that correct?

Just trying to make sure I understand. Honestly, after reading that article I am still not feeling the need to try Jujustu out. I'm still open to being convinced, but have yet to see anything that makes me go "wow, I need to try that!".

> In git, if you get a conflict, you feel like you have to resolve it now.

I guess I view that as a positive rather than a negative. I'm not saying that dealing with merge conflicts is a picnic -- it isn't. I just find it difficult to believe that ignoring them and resolving them later will improve the situation in the long run.

Is there a particular pain point (or set of pain points) that you have using git which is removed when you use Jujutsu?

I am interested to know, because there seem to be a small number of people who really seem to like it, and up to this point I haven't been able to understand what it is that they are all so excited about.

> Some people just enjoy being contrarian.

And some people just happen to disagree - doesn't automatically mean they just like "being contrarian". I took the "Yup..." to mean "this is what I was expecting, because it agrees with what I have seen before on this topic".

> I always enjoy how on jj articles, 90% of commenters tried it and switched, 10% never bothered to try it, and 0% tried it but decided not to switch.

And some unknown quantity of readers don't see anything compelling enough to either try it and/or comment on it after they have (or have not) tried it.

> LLMs are smart enough to make the result seem "organic"

I would never describe the output I've seen from LLMs as "organic".

I'm not sure if you are being serious about not understanding "the whole centering a div meme". Your example handles a trivial case, but does not address the whole of the problem.

As others have pointed out, vertical centering is often the problem being discussed (although difficulties with horizontal centering do happen). Anyone I know that has written any non-trivial web application has run into the situation where they spent way more time than they thought they should have to getting some element in a web application centered on the page the way they wanted it to be.

This article is a good example of the complexity, I think:

https://css-tricks.com/centering-css-complete-guide/

The author makes a decision tree, which illustrates the complexity fairly well, and then there's a conversation in the comments between the author and a reader about whether parts of the decision tree are correct.

CSS is extremely complicated. It's easy to get lost in the complexity, and it can be very frustrating when you know how you want something to look, but can't quite figure out how to get it to happen.

That's why the meme is so popular. LOTS of people who deal with CSS can relate.

Well over 20 years of vim use, and I had to look up what f/F and t/T do. I'm pretty sure I've seen them before years ago, but I never use them. It's always interesting what others find invaluable that I try out and think "meh" afterward.

that's metaprogramming :D

> presuming to be able to identify "the best programmers"

He was identifying the best programmers he knows (as is obvious from the title). I don't think it is unreasonable at all for even a semi-technical person to be able to do that.

Also, it is highly likely that the author never expected their article to receive a high volume of web traffic, and allocated resources to it with that assumption. That doesn't say a thing about their technical abilities. You could be the best programmer in the world and make an incorrect assumption like that.