Relax, it’s just JSON. If you wanted to not be stringly-typed, you’d have not used JSON.

(though to be fair, I hate it when people do bullshit types, but they got a point in that you ought to not use JSON in the first place if it matters)

This is their “light IDE” basically, the equivalent of VS Code. Their Java IDE is the full thing, well, Eclipse. Although I personally prefer IntelliJ IDEA.

I don’t really need another text editor, sorry.

This is depressingly accurate. 😓

Also the strip stops midway through as Waterfall was an invented thing just for a paper. And during your UP work you actually had the customer put in that input and hence it was like in this cartoon strip.

Because it keeps being crossposted everywhere. Sadly.

Yeah, parts of this article feel like they’ve been written by a GenAI. Which… might have been the point, I suppose.

It’s because the same people who wrote the code usually write the docs, and people who are really good at writing code usually aren’t good at writing docs. It’s two different skill sets that usually don’t coincide.

This is why companies ought to employ technical writers if they have enough documentation. Of course, few ever do, but it’d by the Right Thing™️ to do.

Of course, it’s going to be difficult to find a modern application where each individually deployed component isn’t at least 7MB of compiled source (and 50-200MB of container), compared to this single 7MB war that contained everything.

I mean that’s pretty neat, but I’m reminded of that time a MongoDB user found an SQL-based database and wrote a lengthy article about all of the revolutionary features. Feels the same every time a Javascript dev discovers a programming language with actual typing.

Seems cool, but also… normal? That’s how languages should all work?

Unified process, which, despite usually not being called that way and/or being codified in the way it is nowadays, is how virtually all early software companies did their development work post-punchcards (when you no longer had to get things done in a single step).

It’s why the “agile is better because iterative hoooo!” is so laughable, because even though we didn’t yet call it iterative - as a distinction from pre-planned, since we thought in punchcards+mainframe vs after that - we did iterative work. Of course we did, software development is naturally iterative and Waterfall was the contrived contrasting example of how a non-iterative process would look.

Definitely. Most often it’s people misunderstanding the “a over b” of agile as “never do b”.

It wasn’t, Waterfall in itself was a contrived example of a bad setup. More common was UP, or something UP-like.

In long term development, sensible and updated documentation is far more important than the software working constantly. You will have downtimes. You will have times before the PoC is ready.

But if your documentation sucks or is inexistent, you cannot fix any problems that arise and will commit a ton of debt the moment people change and knowledge leaves the company.

And to be fair, like always, good marketing is genius stuff.

But it also feels rare. I suspect precisely because C-suite and upper management love to mess with it, so the rote marketing approach gets normalized, which in turn drives all the decent marketing people away.

No? The first one was at the end of the tools and languages set where they ask which AI tools you used in the past year and want to use in the next one, and that was fairly deep in.

Unless this varies by country or is randomized, of course.

Python in particular is a language that his weird dichotomy of being easy to pick up, and yet no matter how many years you spend with it, you never feel like you even grasped all the basics. Nevermind advanced stuff.

It’s called Chinese Room and it’s exactly what “AI” is. It recombines pieces of data into “answers” to a “question”, despite not understanding the question, the answer it gives, or the piece sit uses.

It has a very very complex chart of which elements in what combinations need to be in an answer for a question containing which elements in what combinations, but that’s all it does. It just sticks word barf together based on learned patterns with no understanding of words, language, context of meaning.

Yeah that’s my point, too. AI employing companies should be held responsible for the stuff their AIs say. See how much they like their AI hype when they’re on the hook for it!

Hey, nobody is stopping your country from enforcing things like the EU.