pjmlp

Which companies?

If they weren't worth before, they aren't suddenly worth paying for now.

Definitely, the problem is that companies need less of them, just like a construction company opening roads with machinery, or an automated factory.

This doesn't scale, because like in a factory that gets replaced by robots, or in a supermarket with self checkouts, not everyone gets to save their job, regardless.

Also, the increase in output is meaningless when the amount of customers doesn't scale in similar size.

Then there are the constraints of physics, there are so many humans in the planet that actually want to pay for a specific product, or consulting services.

Our industry is equally cannibalised, anyone that thinks otherwise is either having too many tokens or in a privileged position.

If business can deliver the same product with a smaller team, great!

And yes this has been happening for a while, even if not everywhere.

In enterprise consulting, projects that would require a team of 20 devs on average, now have about 5.

Moving away from on-prem, managing own cloud infra to managed containers, to serverless, SaaS and iPaaS ready made products, and offshoring naturally.

All contributed to ever decreasing team sizes.

Now AI based tooling is added to that cocktail, reducing even further the team sizes.

The only folks doing well in the end, are the employees of AI companies, without moral issues contributing to the industry downfall, because the CEO themselves aren't the ones coding and pirating human culture.

Maybe devs should pay for their tools like other professionals, and how we used to do in the last century, e.g. open any random BYTE digital archive.

This phenomenon started to take effect when companies moved into being managed by MBA folks without any role into making the companies happen in first place, the introduction of CEO and administrative board, and so on.

Usually this was never an issue when becoming the one at the driving wheel, was due scaling up the ladder all the way from the bottom, or having the luck of being in the owners' family already.

Disgustes me as well, above all the layoffs only to give the money to the "poor" shareholders.

What I find amazing is that the price hasn't changed in years, it was already 40 CHF when I lived there in 2003 - 4.

Which is why during Summer weekends my Portuguese hometown at the end of A25 feels like a Spanish city. :)

Great! There is a whole generation raised on ICQ, Y! Mensager, MSN and naturally mIRC.

Yep, security and digital sovereignty required control of the whole chain.

See how other economies are doing it.

Example,

https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/other-site-policies/g...

https://go.dev/blog/hello-china

Bill of materials, digital sovereignty and attack vectors, see xz attack.

ISO languages don't define tooling, so the only way would be to introduce new semantics.

However, like in any ISO languages, that only happens if enough people vote for it, and someone is willing to submit a paper in first place.

I saw this talk yesterday,

"The Power of Ten: Rules for Safety Critical Coding by Gerard Holzmann"

https://youtu.be/GRJtYwneG2Q?is=M0z7hnpQ78C8fLLP

At a moment he mentions a trick he played on JPL folks, his static analysis tool, instead of showing all the issues found, would only display the top 10, without telling them there were actually more than 10.

So they felt motivated to fix them, it were only 10 after all.

Naturally eventually they became aware of the trick.

No mIRC on the list, oh well.

That isn't enough, who pushes code and repos location is also relevant.

The big difference between ISO languages, which were more relevant during cold war days and the modern open source approach is who gets to contribute the code and where are those repos hosted.

Khronos and RISC-V now have locations outside US for a reason.

Depends on the skills on managing EC2, AKS,...

Because of developer culture mostly.

In some circles having the compiler dictate the way, and only true way, is seen as straightjacket programming.

More like iPadOS for example.

Given the millions involved, plenty of people do.

There is plenty of mindshare on game consoles, and embedded OSes, in both cases, POSIX while not being GPL has a very high value.

See my sibling comment about what it actually was.

It is hard to find, unless one knows the technical details.

No it did not, it used Drawbridge OS research for Library OSes, which was integrated into Windows.

WSL 1.0 was a Drawbrige picoprocess.

Your confusion is natural among those that aren't into Windows programming.

Here are the links for the related information,

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/project/drawbridge

WSL 1.0 architecture,

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-gb/archive/blogs/wsl/pico-pro...

Of course, it was either OS X or bust, back then.

It actually is since iOS 11.

Only if it targeted UNIX in first place, or was only making use of standard library.

I am quite sure my MS-DOS C code is going to have some hard time being compiled on GCC 16.

In theory, in practice many C developers only know "My C Compiler standard", and are usually surprised that some of their expectations aren't even part of ISO C PDF specification.

Then they get irritated that not all C compiler vendors have the same language extensions or implementation defined behaviours they got used to rely on.

PL/I had more knobs for portability, but neither Multics, nor IBM Oses were available for free.

So you still code in K&R C, I reckon.