gbalduzzi

European companies are fined all the time as well, you just don't see the news about it, there definitely no ill-intent vs american companies as you are trying to imply

It's not about being beautiful or ugly, it's about being simple.

Python is simple to read / write and easier to reason about, especially for people that need a programming language to solve a problem but are not software engineers.

The reason it won, especially in data analysis, is because most data analyst are/were not software engineer and Python feels more natural to people.

The indentation is not a big problem when a decent text editor is used

> As long as revenue rises faster than training costs

And this is definitely not happening. They are covering training costs with investors money, and they can't really stop it without their competitors catching up

Youtube didn't have a significant competitor, once the quality started declining and the ads started creeping up, there were no alternatives to switch to (as a user) because the content creators were in on the profit.

The same isn't true about ChatGPT.

Anthropic and Google provides a similar product, and switching to a better/cheaper platform is fairly easy as it only depends on you and not on others (content creators or friends) doing the same.

I agree with everything, but just to be clear:

> This is what web developers want

I don't think it is what web developers want, it is what customers expect.

Of course there are plenty of situation where the page is totally bloated and could be much leaner, but the overall trend to build web applications instead of web pages is dictated by user expectations and, as a consequence, requirements.

> because you're getting AI editing / writing features in Gmail, Docs, Office 365, etc.

To me it is exactly why this move doesn't make sense.

Why would I use Grammarly/Superhuman for writing with LLM assistance, when I have an out-of-box alternative that, at worst, is equal?

They can't even compete with pricing, because they need to use their competitor models

It's not about being closed to other languages, it's about being economically pragmatic in many, many cases.

As shown in the article, you can build ONCE an app that loads in milliseconds by just providing an url to any potential customer. It works on mobile and on desktop, on any operating system.

The native alternative requires:

- Multiple development for any platform you target (to be widely used you need *at least* ios, android, macOS and windows.) - Customers are required to download and install something before using your platform, creating additional friction.

And all of this to obtain at most 20-30ms better loading times?

There are plenty of cases where native makes sense and is necessary, but most apps have very little to gain at the cost of a massive increase in development resources.

Twilio is down worldwide: https://status.twilio.com/

You need both and there are no ways around that.

Examples let you grasp immediately how to use the library and provide you good starting point for your integration.

Detailed explanation of all params and configurations allows you to solve more complex problems and understand the full capabilities of the tool.

I am miserable when any of the two kind of documentation is missing.

The only exceptions are very simple libraries, where the example tells you already everything there is to know.

You probably disabled some privacy settings on your mobile (or you are not logged in with your user).

Even if the data collected by Meta is really worthless (and that is a big if), Meta shows content to a billion(s?) of people everyday.

That alone is definitely not worthless lol

Let's say someone falls for this.

What happens next, when they become the business account secondary user?

Also, their core development team is in Italy and they are considered by many the best company in the IT space in Italy.

What it means is that they have the top Italian talent, they pay them a very good italian salary that is still way lower than an american one.

So basically they have very capable people working on their engineering, at a fraction of the cost of the original staff.

Pro photographer are probably the only one that do not care about this, as they have another option (their very expensive and capable pro camera).

Everyone else takes photos with their phone and yes, everyone wants to take better photos

Yeah I hope they are able to solve this and achieve feature parity with Arc

Arc will probably become a product for Atlassian paying users

I believe there is a similar situation in the mobile space with iphones, at least here is Europe where they are not ubiquitous.

Most people use cheaper android phones, that are slower and with a much shorted timespan. then they try a 1k€ iPhone and it is great and conclude they prefer the iPhone to Android: it is not an apple to apple comparison, you should compare it to a 1k€ android lol.

Same things happens on laptops. If you try to use a 500-600€ laptop as work main machine for multiple years it will fall apart. Than you try a MacBook and it feels great because after 5 years is still usable.

You can replace excel with programming and a DB only up to a certain point.

The advantage of excel is that any office worker can perform data manipulation there. It can't be replaced for una-tantum operations on data, because it isn't practical to do custom implementations every time you need something.

The alternative is to teach programming to every office worker and give them access to the db. Not sure it's a good idea

Because it would be more predictable, easier to memorize, less verbose, easier to use for developers coming from other modern languages and more comfortable to work with.

The fact that they are chaotic since 30 years ago is not a valid reason for keeping them chaotic right now.

Also, I'm not even arguing they should change the existing functions, that would break all existing code for almost no reason.

I think they should "simply" support methods on primitives, and implement the main ones in a chainable way:

"test string"->trim()->upper()->limit(100);

[0,1,2]->filter(fn ($n) => $n % 2 === 0)->map(fn($n) => $n * 2);

I would love this so much

`strlen`, `strncmp` and `strtolower` but `str_split` and `str_contains`.

How it that consistent?

And that was fine in the early days, absolutely.

We are not in the early days though, and in many other aspects PHP evolved greatly.

I like it.

I really believe the thing PHP needs the most is a rework of string / array functions to make them more consistent and chain able. Now they are at least chainable.

I'm not a fan of the ... syntax though, especially when mixed in the same chain with the spread operator

Your other responses kinda imply that you believe LLMs are not good for learning.

That's totally different than saying they are not flawless but they make learning easier than other methods, like you did in this comment

Are we really comparing this research to just writing and having a good answer in a couple of seconds?

Like, I agree with you and I believe those things will resist and will always be important, but it doesn't really compare in this case.

Last week I was in the nature and I saw a cute bird that I didn't know. I asked an AI and got the correct answer in 10 seconds. Of course I would find the answer at the library or by looking at proper niche sites, but I would not have done it because I simply didn't care that much. It's a stupid example but I hope it makes the point

You are right, I didn't consider system prompts.

A new model will be trained for every new ad update?

I think we are overcomplicating this a bit.

Typing "log" and tab to accept the auto complete is faster than writing the whole log yourself.

When you need to add a bunch of log statement, this tool makes the activity faster and less tedious.

Is it a technological breakthrough? No

Does it save hours of developer time each day? No

Is it nice to have? Hell yeah

I think it depends on the definition of bad.

I always consider "good" a bot that doesn't disguise itself and follows the robots.txt rules. I may not consider good the final intent of the bot or the company behind it, but the crawler behaviour is fundamentally good.

Especially considering the fact that it is super easy to disguise a crawler and not follow the robots conventions

None of the "failed" innovations you cited were even near the adoption rate of current LLMs.

As much as I don't like it, this is the actual difference. LLMs are already good enough to be a very useful and widely spread technology. They can become even better, but even if they don't there are plenty of use cases for them.

VR/AR, AI in the 80s and Tesla at the beginning were technology that someone believe could become widespread, but still weren't at all.

That's a big difference

Does this only supports English?