codinhood

Sure, ideally, but if no one can agree on the spec (as evidenced by the need for these types of articles,) then it's not really saving me much effort is it?

Better to just pick something and go with it, then argue about the spec more

REST seems to bring out people who like to define specs and correct others on following the spec or not. There are many other things in tech like this.

To be honest, I just kind of don't understand the point. Could my API be better following some of these rules the author presented? Probably. But by how much? Is it worth it? When someone else on my team disagrees do we go back and argue about the spec again?

After 12+ years I'm just not sure anymore. If I'm using REST incorrectly (according to this article or others), but getting good results and everyone on the team is aligned, does it matter? I'm willing to have my mind changed this, maybe I'm missing something important

I keep running into this as well. Someone shared a link to a study from last year telling me that AI doesn't make programmers as productive as they think. The study was obviously done months prior to it's release. So evaluating the state AI even further back.

But this didn't seem to concern them. The study said X, therefore it applies to today.

I'm just not sure it's worth it to argue with others about it at this point. Not that I'm 100% all behind AI coding, but I'm just shocked people are still this resistant.

Yeah this is exactly what I'm waiting for.

Personally, I don't think we're at that point yet. While I do think model improvement is starting to plateau (reaching a local ceiling), I'm not convinced local models are as good as sonnet/opus yet. The gap is still too much. But I'm excited for those models to reach those levels.

If you’re arguing that model metrics don’t necessarily translate into useful output, I agree. That’s not how I measure the success of a mode and not really the point I'm trying to make. I try to set things up and test it on my actual projects.

What I’m saying is that if local models were actually comparable to Claude Code in practice, we wouldn’t be having threads like this. It would be obvious to the people using them, and it would be massively disruptive. Why would individuals and companies pay hundreds or thousands for Claude Code if they could run something locally and consistently get similar results?

Every month I revisit the local ecosystem hoping the answer has changed. So far, my experience has been that it hasn’t.

I don't think you're going to get many "true" answers to this. The opportunity cost of not using the latest and best models is just too much right now.

Every month I research this and come to the same conclusion: the time, effort, and cost required to get local models (and the coding tools around them) to perform even close to Claude Code with sonnet/opus just not worth it right now. If it was, it would be distributive enough to be in the news.

Not that I'm discounting someone hasn't already solved this, just trying to Occam razor my way out of diving too deep down rabbit holes.

Interesting, so you're saying Anthropic/Openai/etc will get a general solution that won't be hands off. The moat for other companies will be creating the specific, managed solution.

I can see that, assuming models don't make some giant leap forward.

I wonder how long until Claude/OpenAI eat a lot of the current AI/Agent SaaS's lunch.

Originally I thought they would stick towards being a model provider mainly, but with all the recent releases it seems they do want to provide more "services."

Wonder what part of the market 3rd party apps will build a moat around?

> Fundamentals of Physics by Halliday, Resnick, Walker

I strongly recommend this textbook. I used in college, and it's really good. There are a lot of problems for each chapter, I suggest doing them as they help a lot.

It's kinda wild to take something people really like and just keep re-writing it while keeping the same name.

They were around when Angular 1 -> Angular 2 right? No one liked that. Angular 2 is good but calling it Angular 2 when it was so different put a bad taste in everyone's mouth.

Google did that because they wanted the Angular userbase, but that alienated a bunch devs and many decided to switch to React (me included) instead.

Seems the remix/react router team is trying to do the same. They built something popular, and they want to use that to launch their new ideas.

They want to have their cake and eat it too, a built in userbase and explore new ideas. I get it, but why not use another name so people don't get confused or frustrated?

It's just exhausting

Yeah I thought the same, they're automating ordering on instacart. That's such a small task. I wonder if it was a paid product placement

AI seems obvious, but social video? Are they saying people watch TikToks instead of reading Wikipedia, or people who used to look things up don’t bother anymore because of TikTok?

> This distinction is important. Sometimes, creating a separate service is the scrappy thing to do, sometimes creating a monolith is. Sometimes not creating anything is the way to go.

I think this hits the nail on the head. People are trying to find the "one true way" for microservices vs monoliths. But it doesn't exist. It's context dependent.

It's like the DRY vs code duplication conversation. Trying to dictate that you will never duplicate code is a fool's errand, in the same way that duplicating code whenever something is slightly different is foolish.

Context is everything