AI has been drastically improving for the past couple decades, and if that continues then AI is obviously going to kill the software industry and many other industries.
Sure, maybe apparent exponential growth tails off into an S curve at some point, as often happens. But this blog post seems to assume that is guaranteed to happen, which is a big leap of faith, and also makes this not a very interesting blog post. Because it's basically just, "Well if I assume the best arguments against my position are wrong, then I don't even need to address them, and I can instead focus on lesser arguments that are easier for me to discuss".
This is true many places. But I think the "property tax explains everything" talking point is going to persist a long time, because it's very convenient.
Safari will delete your cached data if your app goes unused for a little while though. Native apps may do the same thing though... at least on Android I get notifications about it deleting cached data for native apps I haven't used recently.
That's nice, thanks for correcting me! Although it's quite a nuisance that most PWA info I looked for before posting had the old 50mb (mis)information.
I would recommend reading Cribsheet by Emily Oster. She is an economics professor who got obsessed with figuring out what advice people give actually has solid evidence supporting it, and what is bullshit.
Also for me, the first 4 months were pretty rough. Lack of sleep for everyone, and wife still recovering from birth both mentally and physically. But after 4 months it got a lot better, and has actually been a lot of fun. Hopefully things will get better for you and your family too!
FWIW I tried switching a fairly large project from Jest to Vitest, hoping for performance improvements. Instead I got some inscrutable errors about circular dependencies.
More generally this is one of the really annoying things about Node.js. You might have some circular dependency that works everywhere, but it fails when you use some specific bundler or test runner. Cause they all handle things slightly differently.
Circular dependencies almost always end up causing trouble *eventually* because the body of one of the modules involved has to be evaluated first (when the other participants in the cycle aren't a fully operational battlestation yet).
I've used p3rl.org/circular::require on perl projects before now to root out such dependencies and kill them with fire, and "figure out how to get equivalent technology in TS/JS codebases" is on my list of things to do.
Fundamentally, a circular dependency that currently (apparently) "works everywhere" should still be treated as an unexploded footbomb.
Excising them can absolutely be annoying and inconvenient, but IME not nearly as much as having the damn thing go off when a future maintainer makes an innocuous change an indeterminate amount of time later.
tl;dr: HUMBUG (and sorry I don't have a better answer yet)
Sure, maybe apparent exponential growth tails off into an S curve at some point, as often happens. But this blog post seems to assume that is guaranteed to happen, which is a big leap of faith, and also makes this not a very interesting blog post. Because it's basically just, "Well if I assume the best arguments against my position are wrong, then I don't even need to address them, and I can instead focus on lesser arguments that are easier for me to discuss".
reply