I thunk they're in a real bind. One thing is the product strategy is a mess—I'm guessing that internally they just don't really have product people and with something like AI, which is cross--cutting, that's really hard to manage. They are also in a bind because everyone is loosing money on LLM tools, and Anthropic, for example, make Cluade Code and can charge JetBrains and the other vendors whatever they like. If you don't have deep pockets you then have to pass the cost on, but that hits your biggest customers hardest, which then pushes your users to the competitor product; It's a pretty tough spot. MS buying GitHub when they did looks more and more like a bargain!

LOL. Can’t see a way to change it but thanks for pointing it out.

I think the only way is to summon @dang.

Also, for disclosure, I work at SoftIron as I've mentioned in the past.

Given all the mayhem form Broadcom following their acquisition I thought this was interesting as an exit route. The product looks very cool

It is interesting this. I moved from Blackberry to Android to iOS and found that quality of the apps in general in iOS just so much better. I guess the fact that more people pay for apps in iOS means it is worth making the investment, but I also wonder if the different emphasis on the platforms influences which developers work on which one.

In fairness the article does point if that Nomad isn’t a mass-market competitor.

This is a long article but there is so much good information in here, and obviously Derek Pearcy is a bit of a legend. Looking forward to seeing the new Illuminati game from him as well.

I recorded a podcast with Tudor Gîrba on Moldable Development as well if you prefer to consume things that way. https://www.infoq.com/podcasts/tudor-girba-moldable-developm...

The broad thesis, that we spend way too little time thinking about how we understand our systems, is one I'm in strong agreement with.

This is one of the most interesting bits of new tech I've seen all year. Properly mind blown.

Women aren't a gender minority. > They are in tech.

"The most simple one, that women engage in far fewer numbers explains all observable effects in my opinion." > Well yes. But why do you think that is? If OSS is, in general, hostile to woman (and I would suggest that it is) than obviously fewer of them engage with it. Of course that same problem is reflected all the way up the chain - fewer woman become programmers because computing is hostile to them - a trend which starts at school and has been the case since about the 1980s.