71–80 of 547 posts
Whoever wrote this will go far.
My favourite use is at the command line. It's great!
I pay for it myself and use it in all sorts of contexts.
EDIT: Actually, perhaps that is actually smart. If you want to find people who would pay for dev software you probably should target people who pay for dev software already. Jetbrains is better for paid plugins than VS Code by this logic.
"Our diagnosis is that individual developers do not pay for tools. Their manager might, but engineering managers only want to pay for discrete new capabilities, i.e. making their developers 18% faster when writing code did not resonate strongly enough." I never used Kite, but I've tried Github Copilot twice, and found it marginal at best (and distracting at worst - which is why I turned it off both times). If Kite wa…
My experience with copilot has been very different. It easily pays for itself, and getting my employer (seed stage startup) to spring for it for the entire team was an easy sell. Yeah it's pretty dumb most of the time. But I know that, and I don't use code from it without carefully checking it out and modifying it. But it's still a huge help. Just the time saved writing tests alone pays for it. And I've had a few spo…
(Don't have much experience with it)
"Our diagnosis is that individual developers do not pay for tools. Their manager might, but engineering managers only want to pay for discrete new capabilities, i.e. making their developers 18% faster when writing code did not resonate strongly enough." I never used Kite, but I've tried Github Copilot twice, and found it marginal at best (and distracting at worst - which is why I turned it off both times). If Kite wa…
Especially when you don't market to developers in general, but freelancers/contractors specifically. It might be hard to sell to salaried developers (they'll buy because it's nicer to work with good tools), but it's easy to sell tooling to anyone who makes more money when they get more done.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My experience with copilot has been very different. It easily pays for itself, and getting my employer (seed stage startup) to spring for it for the entire team was an easy sell. Yeah it's pretty dumb most of the time. But I know that, and I don't use code from it without carefully checking it out and modifying it. But it's still a huge help. Just the time saved writing tests alone pays for it. And I've had a few spo…
Out of interest, how are you using it to write tests? Do you just write "make a test for functionX" or something? (Don't have much experience with it)
I disagree with their statement that individual developers do not pay for tools. I have paid for tools out of my own pocket on many occasions. However, being able to deliver code 18% faster isn't enough to fork out $9.99 a month. First of all it is relatively expensive. For that amount I can get a personal license for PyCharm. Secondly coding speed never tends to be a bottle neck for delivering a feature or a product…
Maybe they should have spent more budgets on marketing.
That said, I agree that no one wants to pay for developer productivity. The only exceptions are IDE and databases.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Buying something and then changing it is not "hijacking" that thing.
If you have a nuanced understanding of the language, yes, it is. The common definitions have to do with stealing, but an equally valid definition of the word hijack is to: > take over (something) and use it for a different purpose. Taking over a project so you can have it to advertise your service is exactly that.
You are misleading readers in order to promote your agenda. You clearly speak perfect English, so you know what hijack means. "take over (something) and use it for a different purpose." is not found as a definition of "hijack" in any dictionary. "Hijack" implies "unlawfully" or "without having a right to do so".
Of course, every word can be used in a slightly different meaning; for example, in software can (harmlessly) hijack an entity (circumventing the usual API for expediency or performance). Such broadened semantics is perfectly fine when there's no confusion about the meaning. Very clearly in the case of OP, there was a clear intention to imply "unlawful" or "without having a right", so this exception doesn't apply.
The sad thing is that I actually support your agenda. I just don't support promoting it through misleading statements.
I highly doubt that you failed! You blazed a trail forward for people in the future to follow. Financial success is not the same thing as taking a super tough problem to solve and then making inroads solving or starting to solve the many sub-problems (and their sub-problems) that invariably show up as a result of taking that path.
>"Then we grew our user base. We executed very well here, and grew our user base to 500,000 monthly-active developers, with almost zero marketing spend."
That's extremely impressive in my book! (By comparison, I failed to get 2 users -- for one of the apps I built -- and that was with marketing spend! )
>"Then, our product failed to generate revenue. Our 500k developers would not pay to use it."
You might mean that there may have been an issue with communicating the VALUE of your product such that users would "see" (magical word, "see" -- "percieve", "understand", "observe in a way that you do") the VALUE of it -- such that they would be willing to equally-and-oppositely exchange their money for that VALUE...
Finally:
I do not think that you failed, and you have no reason to apologize to your investors, customers, employees and others.
You pushed the envelope -- and you created great value for future generations who will no doubt benefit from your pioneering steps in this gargantuan undertaking.
Well done -- and I think more people should appreciate you for that!