Very thin frameworks can avoid the complexities of React and hooks and useEffect and whatnot. Here's an app written with a 500-line "framework", notice how readable and maintainable it is:
https://github.com/wisercoder/eureka
because at runtime you can assign a string to foo.
Typescript's type system is for compile-time checking, not runtime checking. The above definition is correct if at compile-time you want to check that all assignments to foo are of type number.
The difference is that TypeScript won’t let you assign a string to foo at runtime, but TypeScript will absolutely let you pass an object with additional properties at runtime.
To be fair, around that time Musk had a high favorability rating within the whole industry. Musk seriously rotted afterwards. But prior to that time he was a different person, watch this video if you don't believe me [1].
Musk didn't "rot". What happened is basically he's a talented fraudster who can speak about being on a mission from God to save humanity and transition Earth to this or that and this attracts immense amount of interest from capital and talent to bootstrap a company.
When this company is built from the ground up around Musk, there's a protective layer between him and the company, so that his bombastic narcissism doesn't leak out or hurt the company's management too much.
But Twitter wasn't built from the ground up for him, it was an existing company, he fired the top managers, the board, and 80% of the company, and then kept tweeting through every mishap he makes. We all saw him for what he always was.
Truly some epic level "behind the curtain Wizard of Oz" story here. And behind the curtain is an asshole with a lot of brazen lies and little to show for it in term of personal capability.
He's an "aligner". If he fools enough investors and workers that he's doing something big, they give him his money and their time & effort to make it happen, and it happens. He's good at starting things, but terrible at continuing them.
Elon was always pretty sure he was some kind of Straussian wizard capable of Jedi mind tricks. Boring Company and Hyperloop were dick moves to try to stop rail and transit projects.
But having to cough up most of your personal liquidity (n.b.: not net worth) because you, mistakenly, thought you could trash talk your way out of a $44B deal for which you, personally, are on the hook could be classified a traumatic event.
Elon spent months publicly displaying that he did not want to actually pay for and own Twitter. And now he does. The opportunity cost to Elon is boggling. That kind of thing could make you meaner.
With respect, it depends on who you ask. I thought his behavior around investments was, at the most charitable, unsportsmanlike and gross. I thought the creation (and public admission of!) the boring company as a crowbar to get California HSR cancelled was disgusting.
I don't know what it's like now, but back in the day devdiv (owners of Visual Studio, .Net, etc.) and Windows were highly siloed and it was hard to get them to align on a common way forward. Rust seems like the sort of thing devdiv would naturally pick up though.
They still are, that is how we got C++/CX replaced with C++/WinRT and to this day zero tooling on Visual Studio, beyond the COM stuff that goes back to COM early days.
Or like UWP was dropped for WinUI 3.0/WinAppSDK and there is no designer, or Native AOT doesn't do WinUI (.NET Native and C++/CX were under WinDev umbrella).
From an outsider’s perspective, it seems like MS (meaning the “new” MS under Nadella) is more aligned under VS Code than their traditional Visual Studio product.
I don’t doubt that Visual Studio will continue to be developed, but it would surprise me to see MS direct Rust resources specifically to it when they’ve already dedicated a lot of work towards Rust in VS Code.
(This is coming from someone who feels mild resentment at how much better the Rust editing experience is in VS Code than his preferred editors.)
However, if I was MS, I would look at the prevailing winds: it’s good to have one flagship, and even better to have another that doesn’t have the historical (technical, sentimental) baggage of your older one.
> but it would surprise me to see MS direct Rust resources specifically to it when they’ve already dedicated a lot of work towards Rust in VS Code.
Embrace, or are we up to Extend?
But seriously, don't MS already have form on the .Net LSP? I can remember the furore but not the details, something about pulling back some VSCode functionality for Visual Studio.
Has Microsoft actually dedicated a lot of work to Rust in vsc? They haven't contributed significantly to the rust-analyzer project, which owns the vsc extension.
> The following companies contributed significantly towards rust-analyzer development: Ferrous Systems Mozilla Embark Studios freiheit.com
Rust with rust-analyzer is IMHO very good nowadays, probably on par if not better than the experience with C++ on paid IDEs. The fact Rust grammar is context-free makes writing tools way easier because there's way less room for breakage, unlike when you write an extra > in C++ and parsing burns down in flames.
(Rust’s grammar is technically not context free but the part that’s context sensitive is rarely used and even more rarely at a depth greater than one, so you’re right in spirit but I feel the need to be a bit pedantic about it for fairness’ sake)
(I know, but if you take raw literals out of the equation it more or less is, thankfully you can implement raw literals as a big huge lexer hack and ignore it during parsing. There's also macros, which are a separate pickle, but then the user more or less expects they may cause some magic, sure it's vastly better than `bob<flop>(blaz)` which is not sane in any metric I can think of)
Visual Studio is on its way out, and I say that as someone that uses it professionally every single workday. They've been monkey-patching in features now for years, and it remains slow and bloated.
VSCode is the future and Microsoft's future. The current limited .Net support on VSCode feels like it is intentional to give Visual Studio another few years.
PS - Obviously Visual Studio will never ACTUALLY go away. I am talking about as its flagship product for current/future development, it will remain for things like Windows Forms and other dead-end tech.
I think VS Code is great for "light coding", especially Web development. I find it not so great for large projects. For example, there is no comparison at all between Java in VS Code versus IntelliJ.
It very much depends on how you like to work. If you are very terminal oriented IDEs are actually detrimental to productivity. I'm basically forced to use Rider at work now and I just can't stand it, I hate how it tends to hide critical details on how stuff works.
Visual Studio is very much the same for me, it also tries too hard to make nice what basically boils down to "run shell tasks". I've seen people get accustomed with those fancy features way too often, only to then lose view on how the stuff underlying works and relying on others for support.
VS code is a hodgepodge of plugins badly tied together which constantly spam you with change logs each time you open the app. Hopefully that’s not the future of IDEs and a Visual Studio replacement
I don't understand how Rider is superior to VSCode. I tried Rider a while ago and switched back to VSCode because it gave me the impression that I was acting as a beta tester. There were, or still are, silly bugs that forced me to reinstall it completely several times. You just can't have such bugs in your software product if its codebase is covered with tests and if there is a dedicated team of software testers. Additionally, it costs $149 for the first year. However, I should note that I'm not a power user, so perhaps Rider's built-in Resharper is actually a must-have feature for someone.
From a solution organization perspective, Visual Studio is still king in the .NET world. I’ve tried matching up my work patterns in VS Code and no matter how I twist it, VS Code always feels like a NodeJS web dev editor.
As for performance, I recently upgraded from an old Yoga 2 (VS became unusable) to the new Surface Laptop 5 and Visual Studio is smoking fast now.
I’ve heard great things about Rider but haven’t tried it.
I don’t see MS dropping Visual Studio any time soon. There are still a lot of us older coders that’d raise hell if they tried.
I also use the free Community version and it has everything I need.
My experience with hobbyist C programming in VSCode (with C/C++ extension) is yet to match the experience of hobbyist C++ programming in VS. I'll try out CLion someday.
The biggest issues I noticed are:
- Lack of error indication e.g. used an indeclared variable
There is an intellisense alternative for VS Code called clangd (made by LLVM developers) you might want to try, I use it heavily. You don´t need to use clang as your compiler. It scans my CMake output to perform indexing.
The C/C++ extension actually uses the same underlying engine as VS's C++ IntelliSense. If you're missing things like error indicators then it's likely you just need to configure it a bit more precisely- VS Code has a bunch of ways to do that, but they're all sort of DIY, while VS's is set up out of the box if you're using its project format or CMake support.
Very unlikely. Microsoft’s business clients would scream bloody murder, and much of their own internal products use .net expensively. Azure, Bing, and SharePoint are all built on .net.
But for things like Azure, I’m hopeful to see more node and rust support built in. The interesting part is figuring out which direction Microsoft goes for desktop software. I’m seeing more Electron based applications coming out now.
I don't think MS sees a growth for .net at this point
1. Back in .net 6, mere *days* before the final release they yanked a hot reloading feature from the dotnet CLI that is typically used by the massively more popular, but free, VS Code, and making the feature exclusive to flagship VS. To me this spoke of a leadership who didn't care about growing .NET with new developers but only to prop up their old creaky VS $50/mo from their established customer base that is locked in to C# from legacy code. They rolled that mistake back but it was a big warning sign / wake up call for me.
2. Speaking of hot reloading, their much touted hot reloading feature SUCKS. It has nothing on the JS guys. Hot reload is a massive deal. How is Blazor ever going to compete with the JS frameworks with a horrible hot reload story. Not to mention Blazor is way heavier in terms of KB and also is way slower rendering performance to boot. Can you even use tailwindcss with Blazor since the compiler relies on your framework being able to hot reload the css changes?
3. .NET MAUI by all accounts is just a massive disaster at this point.
4. Their latest Teams 2.0 UI rewrite is in *drum roll* react.
I dunno it all just speaks of an underfunded / understaffed group at this point whose top brass doesn't care about them beyond the meager, dwindling, VS pro subscriptions they get from them.
> 4. Their latest Teams 2.0 UI rewrite is in drum roll react.
React is also used for PowerApps UI and even when you can write your own components with PowerApps Component Framework, you can actually leverage platform libraries tor performance if you do it in React: https://powerapps.microsoft.com/en-us/blog/virtual-code-comp...
Overall I don't like your comment but I won't downvote because you bring up concerns that matter to YOU :)
A major fail, in my opinion, is YouTube TV. The user interface is horrendous. YouTube TV's UI is mostly images (video thumbnails) and it is hard to see what the currently selected item is. A mostly-text UI, with thumbnail only for the currently selected item would have worked much better. I tried to switch to YouTube TV as soon as it launched, but canceled because of the horrible UI. Recently I tried again — surely they would have fixed the issues — but no, navigation is still terrible, so canceled again.
As someone that only uses YTTV to watch sportss, pecifically NFL Redzone, F1, and baseball/basketball playoffs, I really enjoy YTTV interface because it always knows what I'm going to YTTV for. Very rarely do I need to click more than 2 buttons to get to the thing I'm trying to watch
No, it is not. If you're Steve Jobs then yes, but otherwise how it looks and how it works are usually two different job functions. People who are good at visual design are not usually knowledgeable enough to do functional design, and people who are good at functional design are not necessarily good at visual design.
Bold statement for something subjective. I think you are confusing design and art (from your own experience or misfortune). The processes of visual design have informed (or formalised) the design as a process in other fields. Artists have a style as a function. Designers (visual or not) have process. No one is great at everything. Mediocre designers are either too visual or not at all (especially the latter), in my experience. Good to great designers grasp both and have breath. Even the ones that don't have art as a function can direct, steer and brief the art of a project (or be resourceful with it.) But you can't have design without process.
My comments are based on experience working on projects where some designers (who went to art school) heard Steve Jobs say "design is how it works, not how it looks" and then decided that they own the "how it works" part. The result, from what I have seen, is disastrous.
Functional design (how it works) and visual design (how it looks) is really two different job functions. You don't need an art degree or even be good in art in order to design the functionalities or even interactions of a product. At the same time, being good in art and designing cool looking UI doesn't make you qualified to design the functionalities or interactions of the product. Not even close.
Both job functions are needed to build a good product. In rare cases one person may be able to do both.
"In most people's vocabularies, design means veneer. It's interior decorating. It's the fabric of the curtains of the sofa. But to me, nothing could be further from the meaning of design. Design is the fundamental soul of a human-made creation that ends up expressing itself in successive outer layers of the product or service."
Design is not just one thing or another. It happens at each layer. From deciding how many options you want to present to the user, to how they will be presented. Or deciding how to deal with errors in the backend, versus reporting them in the front end. Design decisions are made the whole way through.
I think this is visible with lots of Apple products because some people complain that they aren’t flexible enough. But reducing configurability is as much a design decision as the colour of the icons. (And sometimes more challenging)
> Design is not just one thing or another. It happens at each layer.
I think we are in agreement. "How it works" is design. "How it looks" is also design. Sometimes, but not usually, one person may be able to do both types of design.
UX often involves research and customer interaction. UI is more straight up visual design, informed by the UX research. The same person might not do both. Do you think they should?
Yes. Yes, they should. A person who does UI and doesn't have first-hand experience on what customers want and do is not a UI designer. That person is a dribbble illustrator.
I remember clearly the first time I ever heard the term “UX”. It was condescending explained by some guy from Google to a quite technical audience of telcos, many years ago. For reasons I couldn’t explain, it pissed me off.
Apple famously did many years of intense user testing to develop their HIG (and maybe still do?). I’m pretty sure xerox did too, and all the other UI researchers many years ago. Maybe even Microsoft did :)
In any case, it contradicts your claim, since all this user research was way, way before UX was a thing.
Honestly I just got the feeling that the phrase UI had become stale and UX was just seen as a way for a new generation to put their mark on the world.
The 1985 edition "includes e.g. case studies (useful!), and an extended discussion of Jung's theories of intuition and how they should influence your designs (!!)"
The dictionary says it means "a plan or drawing produced to show the look and function or workings of a building, garment, or other object before it is built or made."
So it is both "Look" and "function". Claiming looks aren't part of it is incorrect.
But if you skip the looks in your design, you'll end up with a product that works worse. It may not look rational, but then humans do not have a 100% rational behaviour.
Any product designer is expected to be knowledgeable about both visuals and ux. There are huge benefits to having people on the product team that can research, assess and design solutions.
> Assembling top talent is something a lot of people could do
Absolutely not. First you need the ability to recognize top talent. That's already super hard. Then you have to convince them to come work for you. Top talent is not always just motivated by money alone, so how do you attract them? Then after you hire them you have to retain them, which is also hard, because you have to understand what they are building, and inspire them.
It's one of the hardest things any leader will ever have to do. Jobs said as much repeatedly. Older Jobs lavished credit onto his teams because he knew very well how hard it is to put them together and keep them together. And if you can manage to acquire them, and if you can manage to retain them, you have to then manage them as an individual and in function with a lot of other people that will inevitably clash at times (egos, conflicting ideas/visions/paths, whatever it may be).
Assembling top talent is something very few can do. Assembling it and then keeping that talent together and getting it to work in some manner of harmony, almost nobody can do that, it's an extraordinarily rare skill.
That’s really another facet of this that shows what a uniquely talented leader he was: top talent wants to work both with and for top talent. It says loads about Jobs’ strengths that he got so many absolute geniuses to work for him for years.
> First you need the ability to recognize top talent. That's already super hard.
Yeah that's exactly why Jobs never did that. Nobody has to "recognize top talent" to assemble it.
He knew that talent likes a good challenge without being micromanaged. The talent becomes top talent when they overcome the challenges and accomplish something new and exciting. You retain them by maximizing their autonomy. That's all.
You can either listen to what he's literally saying, or just be impressed by his rhetoric.
He says pretty bluntly they: "... were not necessarily those seasoned professionals, but who had at the tips of their fingers and in their passion the latest understanding of where the technology was and what we could do with that technology"
So, basically find young people with tons of enthusiasm for their career, put them all together on a team, and let them sort themselves out. It's naturally much easier to find motivation than "top talent". There's nothing special about that strategy and he's not the first to think of it. Like he says, "the vision" is all the managing he does, but let's be honest there are plenty of great engineers who don't really have an opinion on their work beyond how free they are to do it and experiment. They don't have to give a rat's ass about what their boss wants to deliver it anyway.
You are hearing portions that you want to hear. Yes, he did not necessarily want seasoned professionals, but you missed the bit before that: "we wanted people that were insanely great at what they did...." Steve Jobs did not build insanely great products by hiring morons.
Also: "Leadership is having a vision, being able to articulate that so that people around you can understand it, and getting a consensus on a common vision".
> Steve Jobs did not build insanely great products by hiring morons.
If you watch the rest of the video I linked it's pretty clear that Apple probably did hire and fire plenty of morons that the engineers would weed out (specifically mentioned is the Macintosh team).
The reason hiring is more difficult today vs then isn't because Steve Jobs was so great, but because the internet has brought upon the doorstep of every business a flood of highly motivated drones who don't know what they're doing and will only bother learning if they're getting paid to do it. The demise of entry level jobs and other cost cutting is partially to blame as well.
I guess the modern solution is contract-to-hire so there's some kind of buffer between the horde out there and the workplace you're cultivating.
I hope this is the reason instead of waiting on payment. My case is a single car accident where I'm 100% at fault so there is no issue of litigation here
Because America, but seriously, they don't want to get in the middle of who pays, health or car insurance so they just wont see anyone who gets referral with car accident mentioned.
On the other hand, I have multiple minor issues where doctors have not been able to offer a diagnosis (they just say "I don't know") and ChatGPT has been able to offer multiple possible diagnoses.
Do you really though? Wouldn't you want them to say "I don't know, but here are the next steps I think we should take to continue getting to the bottom of this (further tests; the doctor reviewing literature or consulting with colleagues; a referral to a different specialist etc)"?
