Yeah but there are also network effects of using fitness apps. Every engineer I know switches easily between Codex and Claude Code when one gets better than the other.
Jev has been around for a couple weeks. Cost and performance matter more than anything. Staying with an existing provider (the # of people choosing Jev without already having a frontier API key is probably zero?) is way easier than this.
I think it's a ridiculous amount of money they got, but we don't know what's in the pitch deck. Investors are also blind to most of these things and take the pedigree of the founders above else.
Kiro came out after both Claude and codex, so not sure that any enterprise stuck to kiro unless you mean that they stick to aws in general. I'd love to hear about usage of kiro even in vague terms compared to the competitors. Naively thinking, I'd guess it's 1% or less of Claude code.
Yeah, I'm struggling to come up with a really good time for that.
The best I got is if you are trying to do an old-school style video game asset/save game storage. But even then, the value in just using sqlite or even parquet is really high.
There's so many really good data formats that deciding on a new one at this point seems pretty silly. Particularly because what you sign up for when you make a new one is losing any and all tools that could be used to work with and diagnose that data.
Maybe you would have. Maybe you wouldn't have. But they have to design these things for the 90% case. People using things that are far outside what's being taught—in the age of AI—are maybe more likely to be cheating than everyone going above and beyond.
Students are human. Many have been taught to focus on one end goal: a grade. They see a mythical program that knows 6000x more than is taught in this 200 level course; of course they want to use it!
This isn't the 90% case. At least half of CS students come in with at least a basic proficiency in programming. It's a big enough portion of the class that not boring them into ignoring the actual Computer Science parts while getting the other half up to speed is the defining issue of lower-division CS courses.
When I took my Freshman year undergrad programming course decades ago, I had already been programming in that language for at least three years. It would have been quite painful to have to deliberately not do things I already know how to do because "I didn't learn it yet."
This was definitely a problem in classes before AI. I had a number of infuriating teachers who insisted on failing me for doing X, because "you're going too fast and we haven't gotten to X technique yet."
Decent professors distinguish between "using stuff we haven't taught yet" and "trivializing the assignment by using stuff that wasn't intended". If the assignment in an Algorithms course is to implement a square root function, calling "sqrt(x)" is obviously inappropriate. Structuring their solution using a do while() loop rather than while() loop is not.
I remember being marked down for using a ternary in Java for an introductory programming course at uni because the teaching assistant didn’t know what it was. Pretty minor loss of marks but it always annoyed me.
That said, having to do the introduction to programming class at uni despite programming for like a decade in high school was the bigger annoyance.
Same. I taught myself C when I was in high school, back in the early 90's. Fortunately, in college, I was able to test out of the intro classes for credit.
They built this brand for hardware, but, personally, I’ve never had this opinion of their software. I mean, being Unix based is better than Windows, but they’ve always been cooking weird UI refreshes or buggy software.
It’s crazy because they have (or had) something like $100bn in cash. Spending 0.5% of that per year on software (development, bug-fixing, performance, and QA) would help tremendously. They’d be insurmountable.
I know “they don’t have to”, but they don’t have to do a lot of things that they do on the hardware side. They choose to.
This is a little simplistic. Investing more in the quality component of the org - valuable.
TM3 is basically "if this is your approach to shipping sooner / more quickly, then you're going to have a bad time." It's not a solution for a delayed project. It's not "you shouldn't invest more in the infrastructure of a large project" (or at least not blindly).
It is valuable if you do it right, but it's difficult.
I've been promoting a specific aspect of performance quality recently, but it's mostly lead to other teams creating tests to monitor it that don't really make sense (along the lines of "if you use the computer it'll make the CPU % go up"), asking me to look at it, and then when I say it's probably fine I get a response along the lines of "it must be important because we already told all the executives about it."
That's just a classic software development book. What makes its lessons scientific fact?
Also, it's about a singular project that's late.
Not necessarily applicable to dozens of projects with understuffed teams. Adding people to such teams to help, and assigning new people to look and fix bugs nobody cares about now because they're overworked on some "flagship" new features, is a different case.
It wouldn't help much in this case, because of Apple's "functional" team architecture - basically if you add more people to each project then there is no way for them to contribute in a way that adds up to a fulltime job.
iirc these aren’t native menus. Firefox builds their own. I found this out when scratching my head why I couldn’t find “Look Up” in the right click menu in Firefox.
Jev has been around for a couple weeks. Cost and performance matter more than anything. Staying with an existing provider (the # of people choosing Jev without already having a frontier API key is probably zero?) is way easier than this.
What the hell are we even talking about.
reply