Something interesting happened, this is the first time I read him and just after I finish the article and I get into YouTube YouTube recommends me a video from the author with the same title
High-Level Is the Goal
101–110 of 158 posts
Re: High-Level Is the Goal
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not bad for mobile apps, but still sucks a lot for desktop support. Also, really wished they've opted for a more general language like C# rather than Dart - but that's inevitable since Google needed to make use of their Dart language after they've failed to standardize it on the Web (and I think they don't want to use a language developed by Microsoft of all companies)
They've picked Dart because it was the only language that could have small aot binaries, hot reload capable runtime without compromise and most importantly because they could influence development of the language. C# is one of the worst choices they could make at the time.
Why would C# be the worst choice? Do you gave any real arguments or is it just your biased opinion.
Re: High-Level Is the Goal
#103> Instead, I imagine a future where we have new “high-level” tools, built from lower in the stack.
This is exactly what I'm trying to build. I'm writing a library on top of Qt that would make it easy to write native code as easy as it is writing React code! I would say it's even easier since we are throwing all the constraints of browsers and web apis out of the way.
Re: High-Level Is the Goal
#104I think the real conclusion is: someone has to make a native cross-platform desktop UI framework that doesn't suck. (Yeah Qt exists, but it really sucks...) Until then, everyone will default to just using the browser for a desktop app, and the beatings will continue. Because of this, I'm really looking forward for PanGUI to step up ( https://www.pangui.io/ ), their UI framework is very promising and I would start usi…
Why do you think Qt sucks? Other than the C++ focus, and basically the framework's decision to make you use everything they give you, which is controversial. But apps made with Qt as an end product don't think suck. Qt is a fully featured and modern and high quality framework.
I agree. Modern Qt is great - you get the performance of C++ and the ease of use (simpler than React!) of creating UIs in QML. I've built my note-taking app with a from scratch block editor[1] (like Notions's) with it. Now working on a mobile version[2]. Also working on a LLM client[3]. And working on a library that will simplify and help others build such apps easily - which is my solution to the original article author's problem.
[2] https://rubymamistvalove.com/notes-mobile-swipe-stack-view.M...
Re: High-Level Is the Goal
#105I think the real conclusion is: someone has to make a native cross-platform desktop UI framework that doesn't suck. (Yeah Qt exists, but it really sucks...) Until then, everyone will default to just using the browser for a desktop app, and the beatings will continue. Because of this, I'm really looking forward for PanGUI to step up ( https://www.pangui.io/ ), their UI framework is very promising and I would start usi…
> someone has to make a native cross-platform desktop UI framework that doesn't suck
That's the browser, native ui development failed because it didn't want to lose money on cross platform compatibility, security, or user onboarding experience.
The web is fast enough for 99% of UIs, the story is not about using web, the story is about using the web poorly. old.reddit is not qt.
Re: High-Level Is the Goal
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I feel like the term 'engineering' implies bending the rules of reality I'd phrase it differently: Civil engineering is fundamentally about understanding trade-offs within hard constraints. You have materials of known strength, known wear, and known properties (compression vs shear). It's boring by default because the physics don't budge. A lot of software engineering, web and SaaS development in particular, hasn't…
I think the main issue is lack of competition. If company A makes a 10% worse car that costs 10% more than company B, they very quickly go out of business. There is no 'Reddit 2' substitute product (or indeed for lots of software), and network effects tend to dominate, so your benchmark is 'is it bad enough so people would rather use nothing than your product', which is a very low bar to clear.
Network effect is basically the same thing as urban agglomeration in real life. The value of a city is from all the people aggregating together to provide goods and services and people are worrying about the housing crisis.
So what is the correct solution to all of this? I would be tempted to reach for a land value tax except this doesn't really apply to cyberspace. The only "land" is built by the platform themselves, but at the same time the platform isn't solely responsible for all the value generated on the platform. So, maybe we should tax network effects.
Re: High-Level Is the Goal
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I feel like the term 'engineering' implies bending the rules of reality I'd phrase it differently: Civil engineering is fundamentally about understanding trade-offs within hard constraints. You have materials of known strength, known wear, and known properties (compression vs shear). It's boring by default because the physics don't budge. A lot of software engineering, web and SaaS development in particular, hasn't…
A major difference is what costs money. A civil engineer might work on a major bridge that costs a billion dollars to build. An automotive engineer might work on a car that has a cumulative billions of dollars in production costs. An aeronautical engineer might work on a plane with a $100 million price tag. The engineer’s job there is to save money. Spend a week slimming down part of that bridge and you’ve substantia…
I think the argument you present here makes an MBA kind of sense, but with the benefits of hindsigh, we know exactly what sort of costs this encurred.
People hated the redesign, and stuck with the old reddit UI as much as possible. The company lost a ton of benevolence. Alternative frontends sprung up overnight, which used the API.
Management was probably faced with the dilemma that if new features were only developed for the new UI, a significant chunk of the userbase would not get to use them.
This was probably one of the major factors on the decision from Reddit to kill the API, which created a ton of negative sentiment, some of it probably lingers to this day.
I'm sure a lot of people were either driven away entirely or significantly reduced the amount and quality they posted. While numerically small in number, we know that most of the quality content comes from very few people.
Reddit might have more users now than any time before in history, but I'd argue user satisfaction and engagement is lower than the days before, and the quality of the content and discussion to be had means most people don't bother.
Re: High-Level Is the Goal
#108I feel like the term 'engineering' implies bending the rules of reality to your goal in a way that is both economical and is very good at reaching the stated goal. Like for example if you're an automotive engineer, you can't go ahead and put in the thickest beams made out of the strongest steel on hand, because the resulting car would weigh 20 tons and cost $300k. To add to that, it would probably drive like crap, an…
At the big tech firms, there are engineers looking for software fixes that make tiny efficiency improvements that can save lots of money at scale. Meanwhile, Google and Apple look for whatever ways they can to improve battery life on their phones. But for many other developers, this isn’t going to save money or increase sales, so the incentives are more indirect.
> At the big tech firms, there are engineers looking for software fixes that make tiny efficiency improvements that can save lots of money at scale.
Meanwhile, Google and Apple look for whatever ways they can to improve battery life on their phones.
While this is true for parts of these companies, I think the user experience with their products makes it clear that the performance focus only goes in a very select few areas.
Perhaps my favorite Google example is the absolute dogshit performance of Google Home devices. By any objective metric, these are fairly capable computers (quad-core arm64 processors) running a tiny number of apps and yet their UI is still incredibly sluggish. Better yet, these are basically the only real-world devices that run Fuchsia - they should be shining examples of the performance of a brand new OS and yet they are anything but.
Re: High-Level Is the Goal
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
At the big tech firms, there are engineers looking for software fixes that make tiny efficiency improvements that can save lots of money at scale. Meanwhile, Google and Apple look for whatever ways they can to improve battery life on their phones. But for many other developers, this isn’t going to save money or increase sales, so the incentives are more indirect.
> At the big tech firms, there are engineers looking for software fixes that make tiny efficiency improvements that can save lots of money at scale. Meanwhile, Google and Apple look for whatever ways they can to improve battery life on their phones. While this is true for parts of these companies, I think the user experience with their products makes it clear that the performance focus only goes in a very select few…
Yeah, it's a big company and dedication to performance is uneven.
Re: High-Level Is the Goal
#110React gets used because no matter if there is a better way, that's what the company mandated. They want to hire "react devs".
Perhaps AI will help us by allowing us to swap to simpler and better solutions without the same level of pain and without necessarily having to hire experts in that new solution?