We've been working on solving a lot of these issues with v0.dev (disclaimer: shadcn and I work on it). We do a lot of pre and post-processing to ensure LLMs output valid shadcn code.
We're also talking to the cursor/windsurf/zed folks on how we can improve Next.js and shadcn in the editors (maybe something like llms.txt?)
No, I used the regular Claude which can also (somewhat) do this and uses the same image processing backend as "computer use" as far as I know (source: Antropic CEO interview with Lex Friedman recently).
Computer use is also not very good at it (often mis-clicking for example).
I'm guessing this will work flawlessly within 6 months to a year or so, but it doesn't seem ready yet.
This confusion came from me not thinking too long before writing. My work makes use of feature flags so we incrementally merge features all the time, internally (and can do it quickly). But its still “shipped.”
Does my manager? No, but what if they leave and I have a new manager right before performance reviews? I’d hope they don’t care about it, but I assume they’ll see it. May as well make it look nice.
Does the random recruiter looking at your resume care?
At some point in your career you might be able to afford to not care about this. Most people don’t have that luxury.
I left off a key point; your code doesn’t need to ship to production, I just think you should do _something_. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
> I can personally say that the satisfaction is far bigger the longer you've persevered.
It’s a great feeling to finish something. I find I’m more likely to finish it well if I break it up versus ship it all at once (and my teammates thank me)
I was about to say; if we replace 'ship' with 'commit' I'm in full agreement.
If you're a full time developer I don't know why you wouldn't.
Commits are communication. If we're making them often and correctly, there's that much less fluffing around with reports and status updates and meetings that we need to do.
The merits of CI/CD notwithstanding I definitely do NOT want my reports feeling like they need to deploy every day. That will lead to rushed work and errors on production.
But commit, why not? I don't care if it's in a private branch, behind a feature flag, or even some notes/pseudocode in a comment, commit it. Write an actual decent commit message while you're at it. That way as your manager, I can call up your commit history before our 1:1, and by the time the meeting starts it's already 80% finished because I was able to update myself on what you've been doing.
I don't know about routine skimming of history, but promo committees in big tech look at both commits and code reviews (the comments you left on others' commits).
I work at a FAANG like company, and here it's just annual performance reviews, that include bunch of achievements and then politics. No way anyone is going to check anyone's commit history. There are huge calibration meetings where managers have to stand up for their engineers on who gets what kind of performance rating and who gets promoted, and it's just verbal debates. There's just no way anyone can bring up someone's commit history and have enough time to explain what is going on overall.
And managers have little clue about the actual work that is going on. Definitely not enough clue to understand what commits are about, even if they have had a technical background overall.
We're also talking to the cursor/windsurf/zed folks on how we can improve Next.js and shadcn in the editors (maybe something like llms.txt?)
reply