Code Department

According to cwvtech.report 🤓 sites using @htmx_org 🗿or @elixirphoenix 🔥 perform better on CWV, INP & Lighthouse score than sites using React, Svelte, Vue, Angular and even Rails Hotwire Turbo, Laravel Livewire😎 probably due in large part to the lower page weight 🗿

1/3 + 1/9 + 1/27 + ··· = 1/2. The proof is in the picture. No words needed.

I really detest the XKCD 927 comic, and I think it is actually a completely misunderstanding of the concept of standards and standardization. xkcd.com/927/

Error handling ratings from @rats159159159, author of this excellent video. Typescript: 5/10 Java etc. (exceptions): 6/10 Zig: 7/10 Go (errors as values): 7/10 Rust, Gleam (sum types): 8/10 Odin (errors as values): 9/10 youtube.com/watch?v=zOUsVf…

@rats159159159 C3 and Zig?

@rats159159159 Thank you!

I think a big reason my most recent video was so controversial is that I consider 99% of errors to be in the first category. Most people agree that `"abc".indexOf('d')` shouldn't throw an exception, and should just return a bool, but I apply this to basically all errors.

@karl_zylinski It's a typical market failure. Companies competing to maximise short term capital gain don't care if they're are destroying the field as a whole, or even their own future if they can sell and realise the gains before people realise.

I watched the Wading through AI video with Casey and Dimitri. There is this general consensus that junior programming roles will be less sought after. They discuss the problem of how we might not have enough seniors in the future. The idea seems to be that seniors write code but also carefully check code written by AI. But with fewer juniors, there will be few seniors. However, in the video Dimitri also says that we may stop writing “syntactic constructs” (the actual code) and focus on high level stuff. But in order to understand what the AI wrote you need to be proficient in writing and reading said constructs. So it becomes a bit paradoxical: Seniors will use AI in place of juniors and carefully read the AIs code while also writing some of their own code. But a lot of programming lies in having a feeling for the craft, which is thousands of said constructs put together. As you write things out you gain understanding. So if you stop writing “syntactic constructs” then you are on a slippery slope to forgetting how to both read and write code. Soon you have no choice but to vibe code. And then software quality is dead. I'm not anti AI. I think it's great for figuring out bugs, reviewing code and getting example implementations of common problems. But in order for the senior to stay in control you need to write your own code and also very carefully audit all generated code.

New podcast out! We discuss the pending approach of Datastar 1.0, internalising the Tao, and show how Stellar CSS works in practice. youtu.be/igELI3octGc

Sometimes it be like that friends

S: HTML, CSS, Datastar, Lua, R, Julia, Odin, Gleam, Roc, Elixir, Ocaml, Go A: Zig/Jai (just don't need the extra features personally vs Odin) B: Javascript, Python, Kotlin, Swift, F# and C# (powerful due to the ecosystem or native capabilities despite the flaws in their designs)

New bio

@adamdotdev 😍

@code_department I got you

Built-in themes in the OpenCode desktop app were bad, much more vibrant and true to the originals in the latest release. Before -> After

@oxcrowx x.com/code_departmen…

To me, there are only few modern languages that can be called simple: Odin, Austral, OCaml, Scheme, Lua, C3, and Go. Most other widely loved / used languages like Rust, Zig, C++ etc. are fairly complex. Now the dilemma is: Users seem to prefer the complex languages more. Why?

Midwits are drawn to complexity. Others to simplicity. But the "popularity" of C++ > Rust > Zig > Odin > C3 is exactly the order of development and the amount of time and money that has gone into using, developing and promoting them. Complexity is a correlate not primary cause.

@oxcrowx People want complexity because they think they require complexity AND because people think doing complex things is means they are doing more work because if it was simpler, it must mean they are not doing "work". It's a weird psychological thing many people have.

@htmx_org True. It's both. Some engineers actively seek out and especially create more complexity for a number of reasons. To look smart. To feel smart. To make it so they can't be easily replaced. Java was initially extremely popular because it looks more complex than C but is easier.

@TheGingerBill @oxcrowx x.com/code_departmen…