qq99

Win11, editor runs on Win11, all development happens inside WSL2 (Ubuntu)

Basically all the bonuses of Windows re: gaming, with a great developer experience (like Linux/OSX).

The prime annoyances are:

- exposing a port to the entire LAN (for local phone debug) is non-trivial

- I imagine Android or phone dev might be a bit harder re: simulator, luckily I don't do this

- dev that spawns native windows would by default spawn through some WM layer with X11 or something (and they are laggy)

I absolutely love it. I find it empowers me more than ever before, and my satisfaction is at all time highs. I'm even building projects now (videogames) that I probably wouldn't have started before.

Here's where I'm at:

- Your subjective taste will become more important than ever, be it graphic design, code architecture, visual art, music, and so on for each domain that AI becomes good at. People with better taste will produce better results. If you have bad taste, you can't steer _any_ tool (AI or otherwise) into producing good outputs. So refining your taste and expanding it will become more important. re: "Yeah, I could've prompted for that too.", I see a parallel to Stable Diffusion visual art. Sure, anyone _can_ make _anything_, but getting certain types of artistic outputs is still an exercise in skill and knowledge. Without the right skill expression, they won't have the same outputs.

- Delegating the things where "I don't have time to think about that right now" feels really good. As an analog, e.g., importing lodash and using one of their functions instead of writing your own. With AI, it's like getting magical bespoke algorithms tailored exactly to your needs (but unlike lodash, I actually see the underlying src!). Treat it like a black box until it stops working for you. I think "use AI vs not" is similar to "use a library or not": you kinda still have to understand what you need to do before picking up the tool. You don't have to understand any tool perfectly to make effective use out of it.

- AI is a tremendous help at getting you over blockers. Previous procrastination is eliminated when you can tell AI to just start building and making forward progress, or if you ask it for a high level overview on how something works to demystify something you previously perceived as insurmountable or tough.

> Nothing feels satisfying anymore

You still have to realize that were it not for you guiding the process, the thing in question would not exist. e.g., if you vibecode a videogame, you start to realize that there's no way (today) that a model is 1-shotting that. At least, it isn't 1-shotting it exactly to your vision. You and AI compile an artifact together that's greater than the sum of both of you. I find that satisfying and exciting. Eventually you will have to fix it (and so come to understand parts you neglected to earlier).

It's incredibly satisfying when AI writes the tedious test cases for things I write personally (including all edge cases) and I just review and verify they are correct.

I still find I regret in the long term cases where I vibe-accept the code it produces without much critical thought, because when I need to finesse those, I can see how it sometimes produces a fractal of bad designs/implementations.

In a real production app with stakes and consequences you still need to be reading and understanding everything it produces imo. If you don't, it's at your own peril.

I do worry about my longterm memory though. I don't think that purely reading and thinking is enough to drill something into your brain in a way that allows you to accurately produce it again later. Probably would screw me over in a job interview without AI access.

Very cool!

grok-code-fast-1 has been my preferred model lately, but I don't see any mention of it as part of this release. I'm wondering if this might be better? Even if grok-code-fast-1 might be slightly worse than Gemini 2.5 Pro, the speed of iteration can't be beat.

Love the idea of local keys and appreciate your video explaining it! What do you use to record that style of video?

Cool!

Some feedback: it's too easy to get into a "dead chat".

> Sorry, an error occurred while processing your request.

No way to retry or resubmit or edit anything to get things moving again. Too terminal.

If I just type "try again" (lacking a retry mechanism), having it say "Here is the current image I'm working with" seems unexpected (my follow-up request was going to be for 4 entirely new variations with more specific aspects)

If I go back to the home page and attempt to begin what I imagined is a new chat, it appends this new message onto the previous chat's history. Not sure if that's a visual / caching bug, but it's also jarring

So your <Button> component still has 60 tailwind classes on it?

I think that might work in React, but might have a payload impact on server-rendered React.

Another interesting point for using something like this (specifically, using shorter semantic class names instead of multiple tailwind classes) is: Phoenix LiveView

LiveView streams DOM changes over the websocket, so afaik can't really meaningfully be compressed to eliminate bytes. By using `btn` instead of 30 tailwind classes, your payloads will be smaller over the wire.

A bit niche, but something to think about.

The fact that your `<Button>` React component renders 60 tailwind classes might not seem bad (because gzip or otherwise might actually make it ~negligible if you have a ton of buttons on the page and you're server rendering with compression enabled), but in LiveView's case, I don't think there's really any other option (not enough of a text corpus to compress?).

Not sure if this was a factor in Phoenix's recent default inclusion of DaisyUI or not.

Even in Phoenix, I'm still using a `<.button>` Phoenix component, but that uses a smaller semantic classname most of the time

Sure, you might make a `<Button>` UI component (assume React), but if it embeds 30 classes in it, when you server-render this, every button on your page is contributing ~30 classes worth of bytes to the payload sent across the wire.

I think you're agreeing with me. DaisyUI is 1 implementation of a standardization shortcut so you don't have to e.g., develop your own button, dropdown, modal, nav, etc (whatever you are interested to consume from DaisyUI)

Yes, they'll typically have a UI component that accepts props and may have some internal state.

DaisyUI is operating at the style layer, so you might use it to achieve the visuals for your UI component (regardless of how you achieve your UI component, be it React/Vue/server-rendered/etc)

I'm suggesting that just because you have a UI component, it doesn't mean you should be sending 30 tailwind classes for this button across the wire (in a server-rendered approach), and DaisyUI is 1 mechanism to achieve this with approximately 1 component CSS class.

How are you going to style your components, if not via CSS classes?

Tailwind is just a set of utility classes (that also tends to be compiled), while SCSS is a full-on CSS compiler that offers no utility classes by default.

A lot of the features that SCSS enabled are now natively part of CSS, so it has fallen somewhat out of favor (because: why compile when you can use the same features for free without compiling?). Nesting is in CSS now, which was the killer feature at the time. & scoping too. Variables especially are better in raw CSS because you can re-assign them and have them transition/animate, which is not possible in SCSS. SCSS helped to evolve CSS.

I initially thought Tailwind was very stupid, but after using it, it is somewhat freeing to write some "1-off inline CSS" (essentially) on the DOM node itself. Sometimes inline CSS is OK (and it's nicer to do so with an easy to remember and powerful utility class rather than via `style=`).

For some, it eliminates `MyComponent.css` that has literally 1 rule with 1 style inside it. Colocation with the DOM in some cases making it easier to modify + reason about, less context switching.