Clojurians Log v2

Right, but that's why I said it depends. If you're going to have a simple app, use GTK and it's snappy and fast starting, use Electron and it's bloated, like using Unreal 5 for flappy birds. But make something complex and the question is, can you do better than Chrome? Maybe QT gets close, but good luck with whatever windows monstrosity they give you 😝

@alexyakushev as someone that was just hired for this "dead platform", I completely disagree with you. I would love to never touch Rails again, mostly because of DHH's toxic ideas and personality, but I can confidently say that I had more bad experiences in Clojure companies than Ruby ones, so... it's not that simple. The main problem, for me, is how this DHH delirious rambling will affect the job that I start next week.... 😞

@sia.mohammady66 I was hired as a Ruby developer, that's what I mentioned - Ruby + Rails is all but dead, lots of job proposals for Ruby (5 interviews, more than every other platform combined in the last 2 months), way more than Clojure.

Back to the topic... DHH's presentation style is quite obnoxious, (I especially dislike the squeaky voice and constant swearing) and he definitely could have presented this with a bit more empathy, but... I don't think the content of the presentation is all that bad. I say this after watching it expecting a popcorn flick of cringe comedy. I think he makes a decent case for switching to AI development, even it it's not based on properly sourced academic predictions. I think most of the people commenting on it (on YouTube, Twitter, here...) haven't actually watched the whole thing, they're just bandwagoning. 🤷

As someone who don't intend to watch it but am curious, what's the compelling case for switching to AI development? The native app thing?

Kinda hard to summarize a 1 hour talk, but that's one example, yes. He presents lots of anecdotal evidence throughout the talk. I think his example with portrait painting being overtaken by photography and eventually made universal with smartphone cameras is a good analogy to the current development, even if it's happening on two different timescales. He's making a bunch of propositions in support for the inevitability argument (which I also happen to agree with) and makes the case for approaching it with optimism (expressed in his usual blunt style). Also, I enjoyed the fact that he referenced his own 20+ year old talk where he is presenting then new Rails and saying "Look at all the things I'm not doing". It's a good way to state his case and sort of softens his "sacrifice" of Rails.

Funnily enough the analogy is also accurate on the quality side, gazillion selfies and photos taken with commodity phones tend to average towards insignificant noise where as handpainted art and photos taken with skill are still valuable. Ref: coding. (did not and will not watch the talk)

A single photo taken with a phone may still be valuable to the person who took the photo, but that's basically all the value there is.

Well, you're missing the point (probably because you refuse to watch it). His point is that no one except nobility and rich people were having portraits done on the regular in the hundreds of years leading up to the invention of photography because it was too expensive and time-consuming. Now it's available to anyone. Yeah, people take a bunch of photos now that only provide value to themselves (or no value at all). So what? This is what's available to them. The alternative is nothing being available.

The analogy with photos grows more ironic every day. Have you seen photos made with modern phones? The phone cameras are now slop machines. Text turns into mush, planes turn into birds.

Personally, I love being able to document my kids growing up. I have photos of them from almost every day when they were babies. I have thousands of photos and 4K videos taken in the last 5 years alone.

Our friend mostly are talking about LLM itself not by society which in there LLM cause some problem, llm could rise unemployed rate significantly but is it problem of the technology or problem of a capitalist society?

There really are benefits to commoditizing photos but only to certain extent. Photographer is still a valued profession as is a painter where as the ability to take photos at will is rarely of value to anyone else but you. The main point is that having a phone with a camera does not make you a skilled photographer as well as vibecoding does not make you a software engineer. That said you may still find lots of value in the photos of your kids or vibecoded "smarthouse". On the other hand there is little if any benefits to others outside your family. So, in my opinion the analogy fell a bit short and is not really that convincing as it puts quantity (the ability for anyone to produce "stuff") on the same level as quality (produce "stuff" that is beneficial to many) and that is not the case in here.

This is perspective issue me thinks, what is beneficial to you is rarely beneficial to others.

Another thing is LLM reshape the market, it is not mean new situation is better than the previous situation, like deregulation in 80s reshaped the market, it is not mean de-regulation is a good thing (it was a bad thing) but wether we liked it or not it changed the market & industries The same logic exists for LLM

Oh, for sure there will be changes. AI already enables a lot of people to create custom software for their personal needs! It will change how to software markets work and what is valuable enough to invest R&D resources into. I do concur with Asier that we do not really need more photos or software.

it's fucking hard to say what we 'need' and what economy 'needs'

One could nitpick about the analogy more and point out that AI is not generally available to all people so we are quite far from the statement that "everyone has the capability to take a picture" (which is also somewhat incorrect, depending on the source, as there are either 2 or 3 billlion people still without a phone).

@andrzej.fricze I agree that it is hard, but using the DHH's analogy do we need more photos?

@sia.mohammady66 I will add to this: you can't simply will the market forces away; you can only mitigate their effects. Even in command economies, market forces still prevail. This is not a case for doing nothing, but rather a case for doing the right kind of mitigation.

I would even personally posit that we need less of everything. The climate crisis seems to be accelerating instead of showing signs of slowing down...

@simongray market itself is a social institution which works based on social contracts & force behinds it, there is nothing natural in the market force, like gravity, it is just a social contract.

@sia.mohammady66 you're talking about the rules and norms around markets - this is some of the mitigation I am talking about. Markets themselves occur naturally.

Ya, I don't know if that analogy works for me either... Maybe I can't really imagine like what are all the apps people will be making for their families? Software already scales, everyone has all apps at their fingertip, so it doesn't seem same as photography/painting. But also, what is he getting at? Like that it's a net positive for humanity for all the jobs to be lost? Painters/Photographers was never a major industry employing an incredible amount of people and being one of the better profession and career path. So the impact of losing that doesn't seem comparable.

Good question! What is DHH advocating for?

@simongray And sorry for having to be our messenger 😛

@simongray 🙂 if you live 500 years ago a feudal ruler seems natural to you, if you live 1500 years a ago being a serve would be natural & ... None of social structures are natural

@sia.mohammady66 during all that time, markets existed.

what are all the apps people will be making

Regarding markets - I find it's a kinda pointless word to use. Just like "natural", because from the bird's eye view every single thing is natural, including human-made things, since humans are a part of nature.

no, there is a misconception just because we are using the same word which is the market. market is a modern institution, (like a nation or monogamy) which requires freedom in choosing job & job mobility, freedom of trade & ..., co-modifying things & etc. so market as social institution is a structure which is different with a market in a village, just a shared word

I am using market in the economic sense. I studied economics.

@p-himik I'm sure a few people will, but majority won't. This is where I feel a difference with photos. The use-case doesn't seem as broad in enabling something great to the masses as photos did.

I agree, the scale is different.

@simongray i studied management, but i do not think in the economy major people become familiar with social construct & ... . only what is supply function & demand function & in the good universities learn more about hypothesizes around models & ...

Sure, but the accepted use of the term "market" and "market forces" in economics is pretty clear. It's an abstract term for a phenomen that occurs in many different situations. It doesn't mean a village market specifically or the global market economy as it looks right now. So that is the sense I am using.

If you use the "people who buy and sell goods in competition with each other" definition of the word "market" (with a wide enough definitions of "buy" and "sell"), then markets have been around since there has been trade, including barter.

@sia.mohammady66 @simongray Aren't you two agreeing? I'm confused. You both seem to argue LLM will reshape the markets no matter what?

I am also confused 😛

even Friedrich Hayek insisted in this difference in this distinction, between old term work and the market order But back to the discussion @didibus (do not want to waste of time other dudes who are not interested in the historic & social science things) Yes we agree both that there are market forces Difference is what should programmer do & what could they do? do you think investors gave a shit on software craftsmanship on delivering a software?

What DHH is selling is a shared common sense for the current investors & parts of it (if you see 5 hours talk with Lex Freeman) i think is true & we should consider his points as well https://youtu.be/NYFGCESmikA?si=39Ui9EFdVUPzwsZn

> Difference is what should programmer do & what could they do? Pretty sure there's no useful definition of "programmer" that could result in any conclusion that wouldn't contradict itself. Unless there are concrete specifics, it's all a quite useless debate not different from "what does the world need". Because the world needs exactly nothing - it has no ways of needing. Conscious beings (and let's not try to define consciousness just yet) need stuff. And even if you focus on just humans, different humans will give you different answers. "To ensure bright future for humanity", "to ensure life keeps existing", "to reduce the suffering in the world", "to make my family's life better", "to make me feel better", and so on and so forth. Pointless without bolting everything down to a concrete foundation.

Perl is "311 code" (chmod 311 *.pl); writer can write and execute, his team and the world can execute, nobody can read. – https://shiflett.org/blog/2007/php-advent-calendar-day-13 In the era of LLMs, all code is 111. – My corollary

You can stop coding by hand for the most part, what's always missing is to what grain size? Are they giving 2-week sprint sizes tasks to the agent, 1-day sized task, single function implementations, epic sized tasks? Feature-level?