During my design process if I start realizing that I’m missing maps, More expressive Types, Or more complex polymorphism. I ask myself if I really need those things.

If I really do. I move off of go.

That’s the beauty of the language. Go does not need more complicated language features because it’s can handle the majority of trivial software work without unnecessary complexity.

The language does not need to solve complicated problems.

If you are chasing the form factor, macbooks are serious competitors with really good battery life and tactile feel.

The beauty of netbooks was that ~10 inch form factor. Really the perfect companion device without needing a special bag to carry.

In many ways netbooks were a over a decade too early, and came right before the mobile hardware computing boom.

Netbooks are still not feasibile today, modern web design has made smaller lower res displays completely unusable today.

Tech Companies are trying to push foldable phones and tablets into this niche - but there was always something nice about a keyboard.

With Claude, i find myself reaching for Magit even less.

I’ve worked with Go professionally for the past 5 years, and I genuinely like the language. I like the anti-framework philosophy, the simplicity, the resistance to over-abstraction or even worse... bad abstractions, fast builds, the light native binaries, and how easy it is for a team to converge on idiomatic code.

But the moment you’re building a normal product app, even “basic CRUD” is rarely just CRUD. You need a database layer, migrations, auth, validation, maybe an OpenAPI spec, background jobs, admin flows, maybe server-side rendering, maybe GraphQL, etc.

You can end up with a large codebase full of repetitive boilerplate for an app that does not actually do much conceptually.

Maybe some people see a large codebase and feel accomplished, but just because each line of code is readable doesn't mean you know what its doing.

I still need some smartphone for work. Got the smallest one possible so at least games aren't really fun.

That being said, Claude is dumb. I've seen it over-complicate diagnosing things - even though it's initial theory was correct.

I am convinced a good harness can solve this.

Outside of the k8s operating model, I don't see the point of becoming a wiz at the CLI. I learn by practice and I atrophy if i do not practice, there's no world where I will get enough practice to do it on my own anymore.

I compensate by trying to either move up or down the stack depending on the problem.

Of course, game theory implies "infinite games" and of course the real world doesn't operate like that.

And large bureaucratic orgs collapse under their own weight, and the enshittification is the norm despite the number of paying customers.

Ultimately, Nintendo realized that that's not the way they want to take the IP. They wanted game-play to feel timeless and take a priority, and the narrative to take a backseat.

It's was definitely the right choice and revived the IP, but despite it's technical excellence and dynamic game-play I can not get into the latest entries.

It's a shame you did not like Spirit Tracks. I found the puzzles to actually be interesting and the boss battles to be the most exhilarating in the series - with a good soundtrack to boot.

Is it niche? Yes, but vegetarians were always niche.

While the late 2010s fixated on “protein” and “macros” - allowing products like Beyond or Soylent to shine.

Much of the health discourse around the 2020s has focused on quality of the ingredients and “processed foods”. So naturally Beyond is caught on the crossfire.

Is there a future where this stuff is proven to be better for you in the short and long term? I sure hope so. But there’s way too many unknowns right now and it’s expensive to boot.

At the same time, the amount of anti-patterns the LLM generates is higher than I am able to manage. No Claude.md and Skills.md have not fixed the issue.

Building a production grade system using Claude has been a fools errand for me. Whatever time/energy i save by not writing code - I end up paying back when I read code that I did not write and fixing anti-patterns left and right.

I rationalized by a bit - deflecting by saying this is AI's code not mine. But no - this is my code and it's bad.

But i've found that it's just good enough that support and teams can handle addressing the systematic problems while the LLM deals with operational overhead.

Computers and LLMs!

I cannot stand VSCode - even if I configure it to my liking I am unable to make it look or feel the way that makes me feel at home.

I cancelled my subscription a week ago. Yes I still dislike VSCode. But the same product Jetbrains has honed has struggled to integrate with AI agents as well.

I've played with some combination of picking vim/emacs with Claude CLI. I find navigating code a little bit slower since I have trouble building the muscle memory. I've always been big at using my mouse to jump around the file tree.

Configuring LSPs for these text editors and getting things to "just work" takes a little bit more time. I don't know what special sauce is in IntelliJ but for the supported languages, but it took a while for me to be okay with LSPs compared to IntelliJ.

But LLMs and Agents remove a need for a lot of the the advanced IDE features and I've found it better to return back to just treating everything like a text buffer again and using specialized tools to fill in the gaps that were missing with the loss of IntelliJ

Zero Cost abstractions and it's memory model is fascinating - but isn't particularly useful for the part of the tech stack I work on.