frankdejonge

What do you base that expectation on?

I've used it but recently moved back to plain claude code. We use claude at the company and weirdly the experience has become less and less productive using opencode. I'm a bit sad about it as it was the first experience that really clicked and got great results out of. I'm actually curious if Anthropic knows which client is used and if they negatively influence the experience on purpose. It's very difficult to prove because nothing about this is exact science.

For node applications, startup time is impacted by IO a many files is less nice for IO wait times. So bundling does make a material impact for non-bundled backend applications and large libraries. I do agree, most impact is had when using bundling at a moment closer to the deployment.

I use it to compile backend code. For those use-cases, IMO, vite itself is not so interesting (although I do use vitest). Using tsdown gives me a simplified API to compile my BE code so I can publish it to NPM. Nothing more nothing less. It’s faster and less work to orchestrate using TSC for CJS and ESM output, so very high ROI for me.

Resolving by hash is a half solution at best. Not having automated dependency upgrades also has severe security downsides. Apart from that, lock files basically already do what you describe, they contain the hashes and the resolution is based off the name while the hash ensures for the integrity of the resolved package. The problem is upgrade automation and supply chain scanning. The biggest issue there is that scanning is not done where the vulnerability is introduced because there is no money for it.

While you might see them as parasites, their community reputation may be very different. To fit into your scenario, you may need to get work from the other bums.

This I would strongly dispute. I’ve seen it first hand many times that developers who ignore such things are definitely finding the negative consequences of it. It takes very careful maneuvering not to get burned, either by reputation damage or to burn out.

I’ve given up on hopes of having funding on open source. My open source packages account for about 1.2% of all PHP code downloaded from Packagist (package manager) but unless there is a commercial effort behind it, I do not see it happening. A couple devs in highly hyped companies is able to generate a following big enough to solicit some non trivial amount of funding but the majority just doesn’t care enough about it to fund it. In the end, is open source maintainers are stupid enough to give our code away for free, so who’s really to blame for this. Perhaps it’s an overly pessimistic view, but not a view that has historically been disproven.

A bit unfortunate they used the term domain model here. Domain models here are purely data-centric, whereas domain modeling focuses mainly on behavior, not underlying data structures. The data that is used in domain models is used to facilitate the behavior, but the behavior it the code focus.

From a modeling perspective, there is certainly inherent complexity in representing data from domain models in different ways. One can argue though that this is a feature and not a big. Not the same level of nuance and complexity is needed in all of the use-cases. And representational models usually are optimized for particular read scenarios, this seems to mandate argue against that, favoring uniformity over contextual handling of information. It will most likely scale better in places where the level of understanding needed from the domain model is quite uniform, though I have seen most often that use-cases are often complicated when they do not simplify concepts that in their code domain model is very complex and nuanced.

I believe that why they said "if not revenue growth". Those successful, yet unprofitable companies do have revenue growth, or market share growth.

Saying “hire good people and give them room to do good work” is bad advice is the same as judging a dish while using half a recipe. It’s execution centric and execution alone is never enough, you need direction. A strategy, a vision, a need. Without a need from a customer it’s nothing.

One thing that consistently bugs me is how upgrading from the lowest type of runners to _literally_ anything else renders your paid for included minutes useless. I do not understand who those wouldn't just be multiples of the base runner, much like how Mac and Windows runners are. Seems like the crediting logic is there, but knowing software, there is probably some accidental complexity causing this part not to leverage it. That said, it's very frustrating from a paying customer perspective.

The same goes for minute crediting, where splitting things up to run concurrently is actively discouraged because they individually all round up to the next minute. For example; have 3 concurrent tasks that run 1m10s? You're billed 6 minutes. I get that a run would be rounded up, but come on.

Seeing that Washington granny smith apples are not the cheapest in Washington is pretty odd.