Not sure if you were even looking for paper reviews.

I didn’t write the article, I just shared it because I thought it was interesting.

I think you’re misconstruing the author’s argument, at no point does the author imply that Claude knows best, or that Electron apps are better. Their closing argument is certainly not an endorsement for Electron or AI slop.

Don’t get me wrong: writing this brings me no joy. I don’t think web is a solution either. I just remember good times when native did a better-than-average job, and we were all better for using it, and it saddens me that these times have passed.

I just don’t think that kidding ourselves that the only problem with software is Electron and it all will be butterflies and unicorns once we rewrite Slack in SwiftUI is not productive. The real problem is a lack of care. And the slop; you can build it with any stack.

Imagine being such a slop-brainwashed fanboi

Do you have any evidence for this? Looking through the post, and the author’s other blog post titles, there is very little mention of AI or Claude.

Instead of throwing labels at the author, it’s much more worthwhile to discuss their key argument about the challenges of developing native apps.

I wonder if we’ll end up in a situation of open source projects with closed source tests. Though I don’t know how that would work, because how would you contribute a new feature if the tests are closed? 🤔

Check against Can I Use, all of the APIs, except for the following are supported by major browsers:

• Synchronous Clipboard API only Safari has full support, the rest have partial
• Temporal only currently supported in Chrome and Firefox

The fact that people even bring javascript as the backend is a bit crazy to me.

To clarify do you mean replacing JavaScript just on the backend? This article is about using JavaScript on the front end.

I’m intrigued, what would you replace it with?

What are your thoughts on this 2023 comparison?

So to confirm, you don’t trust blogs where the company is selling a product or service, even if they don’t mention it in the article? If so, that would cover a lot of articles shared on this instance.

For what? I don’t see any products or services being promoted in this article.

People who care about performance are using loops

Well that depends, generators are faster than loops when you’re using Bun or Node.

There are some really good tips on delivery and best practice, in summary:

Speed comes from making the safe thing easy, not from being brave about doing dangerous things.

Fast teams have:

• Feature flags so they can turn things off instantly
• Monitoring that actually tells them when something’s wrong
• Rollback procedures they’ve practiced
• Small changes that are easy to understand when they break

Slow teams are stuck because every deploy feels risky. And it is risky, because they don’t have the safety nets.

It"s working now

I think there’s many solutions to this, including setting a minimum account age to accept pull requests from, or using Vouch.

There’s a great rebuttal to Shumer’s post, Why I’m not worried about AI job loss.

Guys, can we add a rule that all posts that deal with using LLM bots to code must be marked? I am sick of this topic.

How would you like them to be marked? AFAIK Lemmy doesn’t support post tags

I try to stay well read on AI, and I regularly use Claude, but I’m not so convinced by this article. It makes no mention of the bubble that could burst. As for the models improving aren’t the improvements slowing down?

More importantly, the long term effects of using AI are still unknown, so that for reason the adoption trajectory could be subject to change.

The other factor to consider is that the author of this article is a big investor in AI. It’s in his interest to generate more hyperbole around it. I have no doubt that generative AI will forever change coding, but but I have my skepticism about other areas, especially considering the expensive controversy of Deloitte using AI to write reports for the Australian government.

What I’m saying is the post is broadly about programming, and how that has changed over the decades, so I posted it in the community I thought was most appropriate.

If you’re arguing that articles posted in this community can’t discuss AI and its impact on programming, then that’s something you’ll need to take up with the moderators.

In fact, this garbage blogspam should go on the AI coding community that was made specifically because the subscribers of the programming community didn’t want it here.

This article may mention AI coding but I made a very considered decision to post it in here because the primary focus is the author’s relationship to programming, and hence worth sharing with the wider programming community.

Considering how many people have voted this up, I would take that as a sign I posted it in the appropriate community. If you don’t feel this post is appropriate in this community, I’m happy to discuss that.

My nuanced reply was in response to the nuances of the parent comment. I thought we shared articles to discuss their content, not the grammar.