Show me where Elon touched you? Electric cars? CHECK. Self-landing rockets CHECK. Self driving cars? CHECK

Same for me, he has quite good points he said in this interview. Especially the dividends on learning new skills is something I believe in too

If only that were true. A solid 50% of custom types I’ve encountered in TS and Java codebases are just noise. They provided no meaningful information, did not clarify the domain, and only served to further abstract and complicate code that would have otherwise been plenty easy and simple enough to work on. TS is essentially using complexity to try to manage complexity. Other than describing the shape of an object, I find it fails to add any additional value.

He has a podcast through his company 37signals.

He has one, it's called rework

As a full stack developer I agree. But a lot of it is because the frontend requirements evolves very quickly. Backend is basically CRUD most of the time.

​@@popopooooooooooooooo really? what in front end has really evolved in the last 10 years that justifies its complexity? Nothing. In fact a lot of its pretty much made full circle as SSR is back in vogue again. All of frontend's complexities are due to its own self created problems of trying to be more clever than is necessary.

@@popopooooooooooooooo Its doesn't evolve quick, just it's complexity evolve.

@@darylphuah Look, it's mostly about client requirements, you know? They come in and are like, "I want the XYZ feature just like Facebook/Instagram/Slack/whatever." After 20 years in this biz, I just don't give a crap about that whole stack competition thing anymore. People tend to talk crap about stuff they don't even understand, right?

@@casadogaspar Sure! it’s how capitalism works! “Let’s just spend more money and time in complexity” - No way! I've fallen into this trap of doing things the old way. Try it yourself. You can simply evaluate the amount of “variables” and logical conditions involved in the FE and BE requirements, without writing a single line of code and draw the conclusions for yourself.

yes! here it is: x.com/rickyrobinett/status/1825581674870055189

Why, because you want to have much better DX and code guarantees. I wouldn't touch the any project without a type system, just like I wouldn't touch any project without tests.

Dude TS is free and you can choose to just not to use it.

I love the main idea, but the ts hate is most likely user error. Its the cheapest abstraction imaginable and theres ways to skip build hell if you really want to.

​@@brokula1312 Okay hear me out. I'm not totally opposed to typescript, but there are a few things you have to consider. In my personal projects I usually end up writing plain JavaScript. Why? 1. I'm the only one who reads it. 2. Maintainance without type cluttering (what's the point adding complex types to a complex solution to make my code completely unreadable? I want to get shit done!) 3. No compiler step If you don't use JavaScript libraries, fair. It brings convenience and less confusion in a big code base using libraries with type declaration. A developer who encounters a library in a big project that doesn't provide types can slow down development time. I get that. I was there. Collaborative projects in OSS or in companies are different beasts. It has to be maintained by a team and/or over years by different people. In that scale Typescript makes sense. Here are some of the problems I constantly faced over the years with TypeScript: - Typescript is lying to you: Typescript doesn't only add typings to your code. On compile it mutates your code (and not always to the better). You have to think in typescript, because if you know certain valid(!) ways to code in JavaScript you get in trouble. It touches things that is none of typescript's business. - Vendor-lock-in: TS is not designed to give you the option. M$ has an incentive to keep you in their bubble. That's why they don't care about proper tooling to make DX with JS libraries better and don't provide proper tooling for those who code plain JS. I really love declaration files, because they don't get in my way and help me add more complex types without adding complexity inside of my code base. Unfortunately TS doesn't provide a JS to DTS compiler. You have to do your research and install yet another package. Additionally to that I found myself often in that position that I needed a single DTS file, because tooling in vscode sucks with plain JS. I'm kind of spoiled by the deno tooling in vscode, but my JS is mostly in browser and not on server, so I often end up don't need deno at all, but still want it's benefits. Kinda sadge. The real issue is the tooling in my opinion. It could be better - and I mean by a lot.

​@@brokula1312 The problem is a tooling issue. Try play around with deno and work with JS and TS in tandem. It's a completely different experience. Unfortunately the native tools in vscode are not that great and could be improved - and I mean by a lot.

What on earth

@@hephestosthalays2700 Just try to analyze his commentary a bit more in detail. Capitalism is only incentivised by monetary gain. This monetary gain does not necessarily need to come from making products better. It most often comes from market power. That's why, as he mentions, pharma companies don't make cures but are more focused on "subscription" type drugs. Consumers have no way to influence this outside of governmental policy, as there's no leverage from a consumer side, since the market of pharmaceuticals is not competitive by nature. Another example is engineered obsolescence. When light bulbs were invented, they had quite long lifespans. I'm talking about decades. Light bulb companies saw this as a problem from their earnings, so they started engineering light bulbs to have shorter lifespans!

You know DHH is literally a capitalist right? He owns a company that employs 70 people and makes millions.

Oh lord ...

@@williambuckley5601 He specifically talks about wrongly aligned incentives in the capitalist mode of production, wherein the only incentive is money. The incentive of money may or may not lead to making something better, but more often than not it leads to making products worse, or not solving real problems at all. The latter is showcased in his example of the pharmaceutical industry, which benefits from symptom alleviation rather than cures. The former can be showcased in engineered obsolescence, where products are made worse than they could be so that the money churn is kept going. Here you can think of products that used to last a long time, like washing machines, where nowadays product quality has fallen drastically, as a natural course of capitalist evolution.