The results are hardly surprising. Using AI replaces a thing the developers are good at, programming, with a thing they're not good at, getting a digital idiot to program for them. Of course it takes longer.
The failure of every new solution seems to always come back to the fact that html, css, and js are just too poorly suited for building the complex UIs people want today. And the sad reality is that there isn't an engineer out there building these things that has any agency to come up with an alternative.
It would take Google, Apple, and Microsoft coming together to define a new system of building as an alternative. Think things like, new client, new protocol, new language, perhaps not having to write anything resembling markup at all (the joy!),
Obviously the chances of this happening are nil. So we shuffle along adding yet another layer of transformation on top of these broken technologies, hoping it will be enough.
It was solved with Silverlight - declarative UIs in XAML. No CSS. Strongly typed C#. The downside was you needed to install the plugin.
So there are better ways than HTML/CSS/JS but we're stuck with them, because they are browser-native. WASM might rescue us!
I've at least managed to almost completely get rid of JS/SPA framework madness in the browser by going back to server rendered pages (adding reactivity where needed with datastar signals). Datastar is a breath of fresh air and might just make all SPA frameworks obsolete (just as they in turn killed jQuery).
My personal take is largely to blame the css/html divide as the biggest hurdle here. Maybe it is the three fold css/html/js divide, more broadly?
It isn't that any one of them is bad. But, having three seems to want to relate to a Conway's Law where you have three different "teams" somewhat collaborating with each other. In reality, far more is done by a single team than otherwise. Even when you have a graphics design team, often they build their first artifacts in other systems and then it is down to that single team to try and bridge them together.
There is also the absurd level of flexibility that was baked into CSS. Somewhat ironic that we are digging our way out of the limitations of CSS by adding more and more flexibility to it.
Yes, the original set of web technologies was simply not designed with the kinds of interactive UIs people expect today.
Perhaps in the future UIs can be rendered with WASM, with the common rendering libraries being distributed as a separate WASM module (so users would not have to repeatedly download large files)?
They should laugh and tell you no. Interrogate why they need 2 additional months to build it the right way. Why didn't they build it the right way to begin with, adjusting approach at every step?
In my experience, engineers (I am one too) tend to reach for quick and easy more than correct and hard, and that choice is coming from them, not the business.
I just had a ticket that was supposed to take 2 hours but took 6. A process that was created 2 contractors ago was unknown to anyone and I had to figure it out from scratch. My PM complained that I didn't complete in the time estimated and that some of these hours couldn't be billed.
If that's the situation, why would anyone explore the "right way to begin with" instead of what's quickest? The right way is the way the business accounts for, not what creates the best quality product and experience. Story as old as time.
"Supposed to take 2 hours"... Who said it should take 2 hours? And an estimate is not a promise. You did the right thing. Sounds like your PM is terrible.
> In my experience, engineers (I am one too) tend to reach for quick and easy more than correct and hard, and that choice is coming from them, not the business
In my experience, devs do this because they're required to meet a deadline that is shorter than it should be.
Even if they get a say in the timeline they might botch their initial estimate. I might guess 2 months to build this thing for which I have barely even had a chance to look at, let alone design, because I'm still trying to finish up my last project and then when I get into it and find a cluster bomb waiting for me they're already planning my next quarter. Or some things need to be rushed because they're holding up 5 other projects
It is true, the art of building complex products is to avoid shutting any doors by choosing short cuts or acquiring tech debt that can't be paid. If there are features that can't be implemented because of limitations, it's probably already too late.
>In my experience, engineers (I am one too) tend to reach for quick and easy more than correct and hard, and that choice is coming from them, not the business.
you get what you pay for. I tend to suggest the easy and "correct" way on any given feature with estimates for each. My lead will 99% go for easy. Don't know who up the chain is at fault, but that is clearly the preference.
>It's their job to stand by the truth of the work. If management can't deal with that, I'd be looking for my next place to work.
pretty easy way to end up jumping jobs every 2-3 years. I haven't found that "good management" yet, 6 years and 3 jobs later. It may not even exist in my industry.
The non-local and not end to end encrypted nature of this are my only turn offs. I suspect that's the case for a lot of folks. You seem like the kind of person that wouldn't go looking at everyone's notes for fun and profit but that's not enough of a guarantee.
Are you planning to add encryption at some point? You'd get at least 1 more user if you do! ;)
I'd like to encrypt, but don't currently know the path to implementation and how it would or could work with ai features. I realize it's one of those key features that's a deal breaker for many, so depending on where this all goes I'll adjust as a priority.
I still put sensitive banking/health etc in apple notes lol. But I'm glad I at least seem honest! I am removing any admin views of note blocks so I can't even accidentally view anything, but every web person still knows it's possible with db access. Totally understand the need for guarantee. Thanks for checking it out.
Unrelated, just did a search and gmail just added end to end encryption last month!
When I was first starting any kind of fitness in my life, I went through several of the programs on darebee and read many of their guides. I found the content to be exactly right for me at the time. Digestible, detailed, 30 day plans for beginners. They also warm my heart with their hard stance on keeping the content free, having zero ads, and being accessible to anyone with internet access of any speed.
I hesitate to speak for them, but I don't think their mission is to provide content for people who already know what they want out of exercise, have been exercising for years, and understand what is and isn't good for their body. If you're experienced in fitness, the site likely isn't for you. And that's fine, isn't it?
Some folks have called out perhaps not understanding the funding issues with hosting a site so minimal. You're right, that part is cheap. It's the content creators, who are fitness professionals spending their time not working for money that need to be supported by the funding. They also do various outreach programs that of course require money to make happen.
Not a Darebee user myself, but I'm very sympathetic to this perspective— I'm mid-thirties, and a few months ago got interested in losing 10-20 pounds and building up a bit of mass, but without significant time or money commitment. It couldn't be a "crash" thing that would require many hours per week in the gym; it had to be stuff that would integrate naturally into a long-term daily routine.
I ended up settling on lane swimming combined with a ~20min routine cobbled together from YouTube videos and other sources, mostly arm workouts built around a pair of 10lb dumbbells and then ab stuff like the dead bug exercise. I try to do the routine most days, sometimes twice a day.
Something like Darebee would have been valuable when I was just getting off the ground.
> And that's fine, isn't it?
Misleading begginers with bad routines that are possibly injury-prone wrapped in social media branding so it gets reposted everywhere isn't exactly fine IMHO
Misleading, bad, injury prone... not sure where your confidence for these claims comes from, but glad you're so certain, I guess. I can't understand what's wrong about trying to find users in the largest corners of the internet either.
Darebee was good for me. I've said why it was. It is strange to me that you might consider my experience to be wrong? invalid? and that nobody else might find this resource useful?
From a hiring standpoint, the problem imo, is that employers set the timebox thinking that it means something when comparing candidates' solutions. I couldn't care less whether somebody spends two hours or two days on it. I want to see the best solution somebody can produce. I have engineers that can do things quickly and others that can do them more slowly, and both are infinitely more valuable to me than someone who can't provide a quality solution under any circumstance. In my experience, if you're filtering out the slower engineers that produce quality work you're going to be in for a very long hiring process and miss out on a ton of great engineers.
Plotting the first half of the season on the X with the second half on the Y seems very strange to me. If you were just trying to separate the win percentages of players, wouldn't an X axis for the win percentage with a count on the Y provide you with a proper distribution? Plotting win percentage in different time periods on the two axis serves to essentially double count hits within the distribution, provided people's win percentage did not change significantly across the season.
I also don't really understand how a large difference in win percentages means that something is significantly skill based. What's certainly true is that you cannot say with any confidence that a tighter distribution means something is less based on skill, which was the extremely bold claim in this article.
