A bit of a field report from #RailsWorld: the vibe here is far from doom and gloom. Quite the contrary. Wherever our industry is headed, most of us are still employed as menders… tending to systems that customers rely on and businesses are quite happy to keep paying for.
Most of us aren’t waking up to a blank canvas and designing the architecture of the future. We’re inheriting decisions made years ago, updating old patterns, working around constraints, and keeping this shit running reliably.
I think these newer tools give us an opportunity to wonder a little more about the systems we’ve inherited. To unpack why things work the way they do. To tinker with assumptions we haven’t had the time, confidence, or permission to revisit… and share what we learn so the next person, or agent, has an easier time.
That deployment model we picked eight years ago? Worth another look. Some of our web apps probably wish they were native apps. And there are plenty of architectural decisions we’ve been living with mostly because… well, we’ve been busy living with them.
There’s plenty of understandable anxiety about what these tools mean for our work. I’m increasingly curious about what they give us permission to revisit.
Once my keynote is published, I’ll share more about a little programming-language-adjacent framework I’ve been working on for approaching exactly this kind of curiosity.
In the meantime… keep showing up. Keep wondering.
Long live Ruby. Long live Rails.
p(bloom)
There is a world of difference of having tens of millions of dollars and paying hundreds of dollars a month for AI subscriptions vs someone making 100k / year doing the same.
For the DHH's of the world that's not even something to think about, but for most people who are working (even in tech), now we're talking 2-8%+ of your income depending how much you use AI. Just to have the "luxury" of being able to experiment with it. I use air quotes on luxury because I personally find a lot of AI results to be quite bad, but then again, I'm not spending hundreds of dollars a month on the premium models.
It is notable that his perspective in this talk is very much from a developer-user side rather than someone who is responsible for the framework itself. That surprises me, and I suspect it is not a good omen for Rails.
For all of this embrace of agentic development, there is nothing here on how they are adapting the framework for this new agentic development reality. Agents do currently work well with Rails, but there's nothing here pushing things forward as best as I can see.
I know for my own projects I've largely moved to Elixir/Phoenix, for similar reasons to his use of Rust... I didn't want to have to learn it, but now I don't have to and I get to benefit from its strengths.
I think this is going to be todays 'cheap outsource' culture. Good enough to keep shareholders happy, an apparent boost in productivity, before tanking the reliability of the company.
Remember when we used to scorn stackoverflow developers, or PRs that were more than a few lines long. An every morning git pull is now bigger than my terminal buffer, its complete chaos. Numbers game to keep the new metrics world gamification going. Its dire.
The advent of the camera did push visual art in new directions, but not quite as presented here. Oil painting and portraiture wasn't as static as it's made out to be, and there's a difference between a commissioned portrait and artists painting people because they enjoy painting people. Giuseppe Arcimboldo, El Greco and Hieronymus Bosch are some of the most well-known experimenters in western art and they were active in the 1500s. Some of the most famous art movements (impressionism, expressionism, arts & crafts) appeared well before photography was democratized.
The biggest difference, though - as much as I love art - is that portraits are a distraction. Then as now, it's mostly a vanity project for the affluent and of little consequence to the lives of the vast majority. Software, on the other hand, is not only a multi-billion dollar industry employing millions of people, it's also a direct matter of life and death, since it's an essential component in things like nuclear power plants, airplanes and medical equipment.
I want to learn a couple of things once they are done:
1. Once the test suite assistance is over, how do features get built in their backends and continue to maintain the same quality. LLM test writing is a bit trickier as it often favors what Randy Coulman called tautological tests back in the day. It takes a lot of work to get them not to do this, so I am guessing folks at 37Signals will read at least this part. I can't imagine zero Rust read at all.
2. Over the years they had a few innovations in their domain design, ones that Rails made easier to do, for instance their delegated type pattern. Will Rust replicate this, and how would one know without reading it, or perhaps it does not matter? Furthermore, how do newer patterns emerge? and how does our arsenal of better abstractions keep growing?
I don't have the answers but I am glad there is a chance we can learn said answers.
"Here's something that I did that turned out to be helpful to my situation. Maybe you can learn something useful from it for your situation"
The bigger question to me, is the original implementation, are agents going to do that, or will humans hand code it. My two cents, I’ve been using agents heavily now, I review thousands of lines of code a day, I don’t think this works unless I have a clear idea of the spec I want to build in my mind already.
I get a better understanding of what the architecture should be and how I should build it by actually doing the thing, which means typing code at human speeds. I don’t reason my way into a good architecture, I don’t think I ever did that much in the past and I definitely don’t get it by asking the agent to check its plan and explain it to me the hundredth time. And then once I know the architecture, I don’t think the agent even speeds me up that much. It changes 7 days of coding to 1, but those 7 days weren’t worth much and I generate even more ideas and mental models in those 7 days that pay dividends for years to come.
Would you have told a tailor that using the industrial sewing machine improves his skill at making delicate, beautiful clothes? Of course not, actually even in 2026, large swathes of high quality delicate clothes are hand sewn. There will be an equivalent for coding, even DHH admits it, when he hedges with “most”.
I think, for me I’ll navigate my career to focus more on extremely high quality, delicate custom code and leave this agentic coding to the sweatshop workers. I wanted to do this anyway before agents, now I need to accelerate it. yes FAANG is sweatshop work.
Hey is not even a Ruby Rails App anymore. And indirectly admitting Ruby is slow considering they manage to cut 99.9% of CPU with their rewrite in Rust.
These match my own thoughts exactly. As much as I don't love them, I agree with the speaker.
For Factorio players: we used to live in Nauvis. It was beautiful but sparse. Then we outgrew it and unwittingly found ourselves on Fulgora. It is abundant but trashy.
And just like in a game, the rules changed and we adapt. That's what makes the game fun. Granted, that it's all our livelihoods on the line (very high stakes), but all things being equal, we have new challenges in front of us that we can either bemoan or accept.
dhh says 37signal's apps for Hey (their email platform moving to native)
backend for their email platform is now Rust - written by agents
says Rust produces small binaries - cutting number of servers needed from 110 to 10. hell they could serve peak traffic on a Raspberry Pi
says now that agents write all the code - use faster / native languages.
rails or ruby hardly get a mention besides that they might be well placed to capture web apps written by agents.
All DHH's AI opinions are sponcon.
But he has great flagging support and his perception management agency will suppress this one, too.
Same guys?
Just chugging the clown juice.
- He is not wrong and all programmers need to hear this
- He loves to hear himself talk
- A year or two from now he will run this video to admit he was wrong about something
I only wish this was more normalised in our society.
I am glad that he mentioned that he'll miss the flow state that he would enjoy while deeply focused in computer programming. That was also one of my worries. Gladly, I still have other ways to get there, and I hope that you'll find yours too.
But yes, I think RoR's selling feature was developer ergonomics, which suddenly seems less of a benefit if developers aren't the ones writing the code. Readability and conciseness still has benefit, but the trade-off of worse performance (and less static checking) is suddenly more questionable.
Have a look at fly.io facing similar issues, another platform whose value prop was dev ergonomics: https://fly.io/blog/kurt-scott-money-sprites/
Also - what he is talking about was true for well over a year. It is just that a lot of day-to-day gaps between prompt and output were closed in the meantime. In a sense, Ruby on Rails/37 Signals is a late adopter.
This has not been true for me. If you are constrained by memory, you will still come out better using Rust, even if you use C# with AOT. We use .NET 10 at work and see 1/5th of the memory being used by a ported Rust service. Your mileage may vary.
[deleted]
- A lot of this is looking at an existing app and/or code for reference.
- The people doing/guiding this are skilled.
- Skilled people have thought out what to make.
Otherwise they hear "20 minutes" and think AI can spit out a logical or good product from no reference or planning.
Also, he always states super strong opinions on anything, punctuated by the f-word, as if everyone else was shit, and then he changes his mind. (For instance, the way he despised VCs and now he seems to acknowledge them, his stance on AI, …, his change from being seemingly more left-leaning to being a libertarian).
Mixed with his terrible views on society (xenophobia, techno-fascism), it makes a rather sour cocktail.
[deleted]
Cross-platform became so dominant because the same small dev teams had to support users across multiple platforms. Practically they either had to build ONLY for the web or use some kind of web-tech-based framework like Electron.
Agentic coding changes that constraint at a very low level. Teams are no longer limited by whether they have someone who knows how to build for iOS, Android, macOS, etc., or whether they have the bandwidth to maintain multiple native codebases. The cost of supporting multiple platforms starts to fall dramatically.
And I think this is closely related to the thesis behind Omarchy also. Setting up and customizing Linux is historically a lot of friction. If you wanted a system that was personal i.e. NOT (Mac OR PC) you often had to be comfortable troubleshooting obscure issues and spending hours getting everything just right. Don't get me wrong: a lot of people enjoy that friction. But it sucks at so many levels.
Agents lower that barrier. You can want a highly customized system without necessarily becoming an expert in every layer of the stack. If there’s some tweak or workflow that isn’t exposed through a settings menu, you can increasingly just describe what you want and have the system help you build it.
So I think the interesting shift is that software becomes less constrained by what the average team or individual programmer has the bandwidth to build and maintain. That could make both native apps and highly personalized computing environments much more viable again instead of the web-slop that we've become accustomed to over the past 20 years. I really see parallels between how the Mac empowered creatives in the 80s and agentic coding today.
Agents are as prone as forgetting to update duplicated code as we are ( or almost ), because they work at the same level : text files spread everywhere that you have to open and read to know what's inside.
The fundamental reasons for those architecture best practices are still there, and it's actually quite convenient and also a good reason to remain optimistic in our ability to find a job as a professional software developer.
> It is impossibly fast. And you know what? The binary? Half a megabyte. Half a fucking megabyte. I— you could fit that on a floppy disk almost. With a little compression. This is the other payoff.
The guy now(?) thinks like a lossy abstraction that speaks in tropes.
He has become the LLM - I would say, if I didn't know that even a 9B one can tell me with absolutely certainty how much space there is on a fucking floppy.
There is no reason to get into all the politics stuff when this is where the guy is at. Basic fact retrieval.
(Pedantically, one could now argue that it was not clear which floppy format the guy was referring to. And yes, that would be true, but by thinking that thought, you have thought about the sentence more than its author has.)
What About Rails?
[deleted]
Ruby is an interesting language to work with. I don't know it like Python, but it's a language that finds problems developers would run into and built solutions in to make it easier.
As for Rails, as a total novice: It is a lot of Convention over Configuration, and it's almost a second language on top of Ruby. Everything works together implicitly so you have to recognize what's happening when you look at the code. I don't know if any Ruby/Rails oriented IDEs exist that guide the developer with hints and shortcuts to how the pieces of a Rails app fit together, but it sure would be handy.
I can see how typed, high-performance languages with explicit references to all the integrations would be easier for AI to handle. But as long as humans sometimes have to look at the code, I would think Rails still has a place.
[deleted]
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
There are lots of languages I don't use, but I can't imagine saying that about any of them.
[dead]
[dead]
Plenty of jobs have expenses built into them. Maybe a subscription is more than it used to be, I had great jobs on a used 200$ thinkpad, but it's still cheaper than being a photographer. And 100k is more than most jobs.
Software dev, even if it's all agents now, is still pretty dang economical
I send a ton of requests and even reaching $10 for the month would take more calls than I have capacity to review and use. And as I said, that's for a ton of requests.
I am definitely not having a blast at work with LLMs. Everyone in the team has become simple rubber-stampers for whatever the AI puts out. There are mountains of documentation which gives a false sense of understanding of how things work, but the code repository itself could have been written in Brainfuck and it would make almost no difference. And we keep getting told by management that this is fine. We've become simple janitors in the slop hall.
At work, it seems a bit different - I'm certainly having to declaudify things it can be hard starting there's a lot to dig into - you can see it's overwritten but need to understand every detail to sort it out.
[deleted]
Probably going to if I want to keep my job, since I'll be making about the same amount of money moving boxes or cleaning toilets, only in much less comfortable conditions.
It's essentially trying to turn programming into a micro-transaction based pay to play / pay to win outcome, a concept that was gaming related for decades.
But I also think that premise is bullshit and not gonna happen.
There is no future without these models. They truly are an entirely different league than the cheap stuff. You can move mountains with Astra or Opus 5.5.
Like the other commentor said, its just going to be a net negative, because whatever productivity increase you supposedly do get, you will see exactly 0 of that translated into salary increase.
Here is the description for the Rails World 2026 Opening Keynote:
"Opening Keynote highlighting what's new in Rails, what's coming next, and where Rails is headed in the future."
DHH literally did not cover that. Not even close!
The first response in the conference chat described it as the "worst opening keynote possible to setup the Rails World conference." While someone soon disagreed with that, another guy later said he felt it undermined the later talks, and someone else said the Laracon conference had more about what the framework is doing in the AI age. He barely mentioned Rails. I get how he was excited about his experiments but I certainly wish he had focused more on what Rails is doing for this new era.
[deleted]
[dead]
It’s natural to be pessimistic if you are unskilled. Your ability to keep your job is directly proportional to how good you are.
That sure sounds like any savvy business should pivot away from Rails and Ruby in general as fast as they can, assuming they have tokens to burn. Personally, I built my career on Python, but any new thing I build is almost always in Go or Rust. Why mess with an interpreter if you don't have to?
The fact that you get so much out of the box that just works and you don’t have to do much beyond configure it reduces a ton of headaches.
Absolutely would rather be using Go instead of Ruby but for apps of a certain kind and size, the omakase approach of Rails still wins out.
I mean I haven’t touched Ruby in years but if you’ve got tokens to burn, who cares? Compute is pretty cheap these days and Ruby is usually fast enough for web stuff, and as far as I can tell 2nd hand the robots write it just fine.
And I say this as someone building a strongly typed programming language that compiles to native code.
It is just that it shouldn't be done in the opening keynote of a conference. I thought it was very irresponsible to the other smaller sponsors and those who paid to join. I know Shopify fund most of it and is likely on the same stand.
> Long live Ruby. Long live Rails.
> p(bloom)
These aphorisms try to put a more positive spin on the keynote, but they miss the point that made it so disappointing for a lot of people.
They travelled to a Ruby on Rails conference because they wanted to hear RoR talks. The keynote was all about AI and Rust and ended with “don’t be losers” about the AI debate.
Ruby on Rails content not found.
I suppose the die hard fans who have been around this long and who continue to travel to see DHH speak have aligned themselves with him as a personality figure, maybe more so than with Rails itself. Outside of that bubble, it just feels sad that one person used the conference to do yet another controversial move in an inflammatory way while ignoring the topic everyone travelled for. I say this as someone who uses a lot of AI and also agrees that programming work has changed. It’s just so insulting to be surprise-lectured about it with condescending “don’t be losers” comments when the topic was supposed to be Rails.
There was an opportunity to talk about what AI meant for the future of Rails, but instead he went off bragging about rewriting Hey in Rust. Rust has been my primary language for years, but I don’t want to be lectured about it in a Rails keynote while Rails discussion is nowhere to be found.
Those who travelled to a soon to be dead web frameworks conference might appreciate the heads up.
Those who refuse to accept or believe it might be salty.
If it was me, I would have preferred to be informed it was dead before spending $699 on tickets and buying airfare and hotel reservations.
I know some people might disagree, mainly because AI isn’t a new architecture or a new programming language in the traditional sense. But I still think it’s worth revisiting the assumptions and having the discussion.
You have to adhere to bizarre requirements, you can be taken down on a whim without possibility to appeal.
You have to pay for a developer account at least to Apple each year $100, Google one time fee $25.
Nothing like that for a web app.
The web and native apps serve different purposes. Users do not use a website the same way they use a mobile app, and the trade-offs are different.
I’m getting tired of web developers failing to acknowledge that and treating web technology like a hammer that needs to be applied to every nail they come across.
And especially when people say “the web”, what they often really mean is Chrome and the Chromium ecosystem. A lot of web apps barely get tested properly on Firefox or Safari, which only reinforces Google’s monopoly over the web platform.
Yes, app stores have their problems. That does not make the web the right answer for every product.
Living in the fear of p(doom) is miserable. We're all gonna die one day anyway.
No technology is inevitable. Technology isn't nature.
There are people here who have worked in the same CF codebase for over twenty years. They might start and finish their careers in a language everyone else forgot about decades ago.
I think Ruby has enough momentum that career Rubyists will have a home for as long as they want one.
I spent 2 years coding in ColdFusion maybe 25 years ago. I've got experience!
1. thank you for omz, it's great
2. how is it possible you've been on HN for over 15 years and have just 254 karma?
To be fair, this is true of most of AFK world. Things start seeing a lot less doomy and gloomy when you're actually outside talking with other humans. Seems to mostly be online and various darker corners where they're dooming and glooming.
Is the idea that they'll switch to doing "product owner" roles overseeing agents? I don't see that employing the same number of people or paying as well as engineering used to.
To be honest I expect that that role to suit different people to those that used to be engineers.
If this feels gloomy to some people, it's because it is.
If he's hiring new people they won't be engineers or the people that used to do engineering.
They'll be people that are better suited to writing English than code.
Looking it up: Planet Argon is a Ruby on Rails development agency.
He's sitting in the front row at a Ruby on Rails conference - what did you think his job was?
His comment is just damage control and biased, it did not state he's heavily invested financially in rails. Not everyone knows who he is, I didn't.
What he was saying in his talk was that his customers (people using Hey for email and calendar) never really wanted hybrid web-native apps, they want native apps (like most people prefer on mobile). His business could never afford to have a dev team that built and supported six different native apps, so they always built using hybrid web-native stuff using Turbo Native.
Now that his development team has access to agentic coding, they can build and maintain six mobile native apps. For his app, the back end part then becomes small and simple and they can reimplement it in rust to reduce server cost.
His point wasn't that rust is better than ruby, or anything like that. His point was that agentic coding allows smaller teams to do bigger things. For most people building on rails, their customers don't need native mobile apps (I know mine don't) and for them Rails is a fantastic choice for agentic coding.
Rails is so into agentic coding that they publish benchmarks of how effective different models are for building with rails:
TLDR: DHH isn't anti-rails, he is pro-agentic coding. Rails is great with agentic coding. AI doesn't mean layoffs, it means your teams can do much more than they could do before.
- A layperson can now build one a solo developer can do
- A solo dev can now build what an agency of web development can do
- An agency of web development can now build native apps similar to what large corporation can do
- Large corporation can now tackle even more ambitious projects
Which makes sense given what got automated. This is with the current tech, people still exploring the full potential, but if that turns out to be the case then I'd argue the software market will grow substantially and we are just having an adjustment period.
It’s the top of the chain that I wonder about. Agentic development is so fast (and in the process I’ve developed so good) that I’m thinking there is actually a maximum size a company doing this work could get. Beyond that top end size the management overhead is what’s limiting or the market size total. Maybe not, maybe mega dev houses will find other problems to solve, but I have a hard time imagining it.
From what I have seen the pie will get way larger, but there is growth pain and adjustment period for sure.
[dead]
He explicitly said he still loves ruby as a language and thinks Rails is well suited for a future with AI coding.
It's interesting how this stuff gets spun on social media by people who don't watch the content.
I can't but help think that he would have spent longer on it if that's what he really thought.
I don't think he believes in Rails any more.
It's clear that he was more excited about thing that are not ruby or rails and now considers rust better suited to the output of AI.
To be honest, I could see rust taking over from typescript/javascript as an output language for the web too. If no one needs to read source code any more why not use rust for everything?
That sounds like layoffs lol.
It’s his business decision to save on native app development costs to increase his (generous?) profit margins.
I have a hard time believing that, considering his hobby of racing cars and commissioning one-off hypercars. Unless it's that his business could never afford that dev team after DHH takes his salary.
Why not adapt rails for this next generation?
Why do it this way? It’s like walking into a temple to yell about Jesus. It was absurdly obnoxious.
That's an opinion, not a summary though. The way how DHH behaved is really awkward in the last years. See the "let's shoot down wolves" blog entry here:
https://world.hey.com/dhh/wolves-sheep-and-gypsies-ba44af6a
That DHH is into AI agents everywhere is easy to see, but if you go to rails-con, would you not expect this to be about rails as such, and people? Now it's about rust - and AI. Controlled by big corporations. Yikes - some people must be upset about having gone there to listen to DHH preaching about an agentic future.
Edit: I also watched parts of the recent youtube video about rails. I could not focus on the content because DHH's style was so strange. I've seen that style before - nothingburger talks. Look at phrases he used such as "I have retired from being a professional programmer/software engineer". This is all aimed to hype up "agentic coding is the future". Rails is dead - that video is all the proof one needs. DHH shifted gears to AI, and it is quite similar to when he first promoted rails. But now it is about AI, not rails.
Also, I hate native apps. FWIW most devs I know actively try to avoid them.
(1) https://www.uclawjournal.org/how-ai-destroys-institutions/
To each their own, but I think using Rails in the era of agents is probably a mistake. It has 2 big problems IMO.
(a) A ton of footguns that an agent can and will miss on occasion, and as we manually review less and less code, we will also miss it, and
(b) security on the web has become increasingly important due to hostile AI agents, and while rails has great secure conventions (see (a)), it's still easier to screw up something and not catch it until after it's deployed because there are simply less guardrails in place (dynamic types, no compile, slow tests, generally bad performance profile).
One thing the AI era has changed for me is how easily I spot Gell-Mann amnesia, of which this is an unfortunately strong example.
His politics, even putting aside their nature, are framed with deliberate misuse of facts and data; why would he be someone to listen to in any depth on any other topic?
I have a background in sociology and urban planning. It's very clear that DHH is not an expert on politics. His blog posts demonstrate a very elementary understanding of the topics he covers. He doesn't even understand statistics.
What an interesting way to make it sound like that means anything. "Background" - how appropriately vague...
And how exactly does this make you an expert on European, and especially Danish, immigration, culture and vox populi?
Any specific examples? I am/was out of the loop on this and had to Google "DHH politics" to know what people are talking about.
If you check now using current sources the British-born population is still around 59% the only thing that has changed is that fewer people identify themselves on the census as 'White British' which has a host of reasons around it. So he took a misleading statistic, interpreted it incorrectly and then built some kind of nostalgic story around it to support what was essentially an excuse to support far-right thugs protesting.
The one for me is spotting the Baader-Meinhof effect, of which this is an unfortunately strong example.
But if someone misrepresents deliberately on a topic of polarising importance, why would you spend any time listening to them on any other topic?
I would (still) listen to him if I did not know he wrote stupid wrong things on other topics in bad faith.
I had a fairly opposite reaction: Knowing what you can't be and how much less important your past work is going to be is good. If there are good reasons for more people doing less in Rails, then the creator is probably the person you want to be most level headed about that.
(They can, of course, still be wrong)
[dead]
DHH repeatedly presents electoral democracy as the legitimate mechanism for resolving political disagreement. He has also repeatedly emphasized free speech, including criticizing European restrictions that he regards as excessive, and has argued for keeping political disagreements from destroying ordinary social relationships.
Historians generally use fascism for something considerably more specific than nationalism, anti-immigration politics, or right-wing populism: typically an authoritarian ultranationalist movement hostile to liberal democracy and political pluralism, historically associated with a powerful centralized state, suppression of opposition, and political violence.
DHH doesn’t fit the bill.
.·°՞( ̑ ᗜ ̑ )՞°·.
Phoenix with LiveView bypassing the need for a separate frontend framework is also a huge win there.
I'm on board with the idea that agents are going to write most of the code, but not checking it is just insane to me, based on some of the things I've seen committed in commercial codebases recently.
I'm always pleased when working with a dev who has Rails experience even if they've since moved stack, as often they have picked up and learned the value of these good behaviours. Perhaps it's as much a community thing as a framework thing, or combination of both.
Agentic development definitely still has room to improve, but I suspect that there is some future framework (maybe even language) designed to help minimise these types of mistakes.
Is it types? Are types the answer? Is it rust?
As time has gone on Rails has gotten better about this, but it still means that "your rails" and "my rails" are different enough that AI could easily get confused.
As you say, the other aspect is the intense dynamism which works against AI, which again prefers to have everything explicit and reasonable about from the text.
So I ended up going back to Javascript after a brief 12 year digression into Ruby. I still love Ruby but it's just not the right language for the current environment and team structures - typescript is "worse is better" in the right ways that it's a much better choice for both frontend/backend being the same and better type systems.
When designing systems, you want the important details to be right. Especially with authentication and authorization.
From an architecture level, you can know which classes are important to review and which ones are not.
In Software Engineering, we learned about requirements, testings, system design, UMLs, etc, and those seems to be more relevant than ever.
[dead]
You can say "ride the wave", but this is more - this is helping the wave become huge. And cashing in too. Sorry, but I no longer buy any of what these guys do. To me they seem like BigBro ad-clowns.
> Agents do currently work well with Rails
According to whom? And not everyone wants to become dependent on corporate-agents sucking them dry financially. We all know the increase-in-cost will come with regards to tokens, after the get-hook addiction phase is over.
[dead]
And honestly, do people really think everyone is just going to become an "energized creator"?
[dead]
1. AI is exposing the harsh truth that 99% of the code out there has always been throwaway code. Yet good developers, void of any engineering skill, treated it like the 1% that wasn't and called their hygiene and practices engineering.
2. Way too many developers that have made their careers or internet fame out of their technical proficiency understand that the shift is unavoidable. See Antirez implementation of Arrays in Redis or his Dwarfstar project. Virtually every line of these projects has been AI authored. And yet they are terrific projects with extremely strong architecture. And not a single line was edited in vi (his favorite editor).
There's a difference between everything being vibe-coded where you don't look at the code and don't understand anything and using your agent like a very fast pair programmer.
It looks like Antirez did the latter. From https://antirez.com/news/164:
> In the first month I just wrote the specification document...Thanks to AI, the specification evolved a lot, via back and forth of feedback, intellectual challenges about what was the best design, what was the right compromise, what was too engineered and what not.
> You know what was the biggest realization of all that? For high quality system programming tasks you have to still be fully involved
Judgement will be required even moreso now. There will be critical parts of the system where it's important that engineers know them well. But there's a lot of work around the core that isn't that critical to know in detail. For these types of things, I've found it's just important to understand the gist to make sure things aren't going off the rails. But for the core pieces, it's important to understand the details of what's happening.
I agree that we have to keep understanding our code and we have to understand the systems we build.
I think the deeper issue is that AI can generate so much code that reading it simply doesn't scale.
Even if AI were to produce perfectly written code that didn't have any bugs that human review needed to catch, it would still be too much code to read in order to understand everything. The machine can write much faster than I can read.
Extending this argument further, it also becomes impossible to onboard young people to codebases if we maintain an expectation that reading all the lower level source code is how they come up to speed. I don't think this was ever an actual expectation in the industry, although we may have short-handed it that way in conversation.
So IMHO we need to come up with higher level visualizations and other ways to compress the knowledge that we used to get out of reading source code. We basically need to create new higher level projections off of our semantic understanding of the project.
It is sadly a fundamental feature of capitalism. We will see this again and again as long as our economic system is set up the way it current is. Just imagine, there will be a time in the perhaps not-too-distant future when the old folks of that time will lament how easy the kids of today have it!
That said, I think this only applies to apps that can be replaced by vibe coded garbage. Anything with a network effect, or anything that requires deep domain knowledge is much safer
I am not sure what is it about the HN crowd that makes them so out of touch with what the average Joe is capable of. It's like that Dropbox post top comment all over again.
Don't you think that the only reason you think it's simple is because you're... A professional Software Engineer??
Sure, not everybody can do it - i take your point. But the dynamic between can and can’t has changed. Projects I wouldn’t take on because they were too much work for not enough reward have become something I can pop off in a couple hours. People who know nothing about coding but a lot about their specific need can build complex apps in days.
Are you changing your own oil? The cost of oil alone usually ends up being around 3 DIY changes vs one at the dealer ship. The mobile 1 synthetic I like is currently $92 for a 3-pack of 5qt containers. Which is enough for 3 oil changes with some left over to almost do a 4th. Dealership currently wants $84+tax for change w/free tire rotation. It's cheaper but certainly not "do it forever", and living in an apartment often means risking getting a warning from the landlord for doing auto maintenance in the parking lot since its against the stated rules in the lease.
Drain plug is in a stupid location that I don't often feel like dealing with. I do change the oil myself in all my other machines with much more pleasant for oil change designs, though. So I guess what you are saying is that AI isn't ergonomic enough yet, but will that hold true much longer?
I could sell some of my tools I built but I am on the fence about it. As a few others have said, there is still work and taste that goes into those tools that some might not want to put the effort into. However, there will be an increasing number of people who just build bespoke tools for themselves. That's probably ok. There's a market for both.
The most important thing now (and maybe always) is distribution. If anyone can build something then it ultimately comes down to your ability to market, build trust and provide support at 2:30 AM. That's hard to do when you're a one person shop. Software is an ongoing operational commitment if you make it your business.
But I assume you didn't use to build anything substantial.
As of now, but we are talking in a perspective.
Business people I work with tend to have all kind of ideas in different places, I cannot count all the Trello boards they have abandoned. Users are usually lazy and don't want to fill in data properly, well yeah chatbox with llm is cool interface, but you still have to enforce structure for data so it is useful.
With AI problem is still there "garbage in, garbage out", models are not going to imagine correct data to fill in blanks, in the end if you need someones birthday, someone has to type it in.
Web app I am working on is organised only because we get engineers and quality assurance and we get paid for maintaining application. Data is structured and we can deliver insights because the application enforces structure.
There are far more requirements than AI can deliver on its own.
Yeah, I'm sure you are doing ~4 years worth of work per day. Get real Jesus Christ.
I wonder if the web will go away and the Internet will be just bot to bot traffic.
Navigating the web seems archaic in that context. Not only is that the end of Rails, but of frontend, JavaScript, etc. in the long term.
[deleted]
[dead]
Let's see how that goes.
Personally, I wouldn't want all my emails stored on a service where the dude doesn't even look at the code anymore.
I agree it seems like the end of Ruby on Rails. I personally hope a fork will come along as a spiritual successor, because I still love building web apps this way.
Where will we be in 5 years?
Examples:
It doesn't make much sense to use a human language like Ruby and leave so much on the table when you can use a language like Rust or C to squeeze a LOT more out of correctness/types/performance.
EDIT: wrote Rust by mistake.
[deleted]
(disclaimer: I'm a CEO of HTMX)
Keep in mind DHH is working on an email app, it makes sense he sees native as the default option for that over pushing everything through the web when the barrier to entry lowered dramatically.
Hotwire is not explicitly a cross-platform concept. It's primarily a way to build web apps in the browser which is not going away any time soon. The only difference is in 2026 you're just more likely to vibecode a native mobile app than build a web/React Native version. Likewise you may build a native Desktop version instead of an Electron wrapper.
So even if we can generate an app easily now, is that a wise choice for every business?
Same with server side rust. A high volume transactional backend email service makes sense there. The base layer of a CRM managing a lot of business logic?
Life will go on much the same. We just have more options to say yes to 'native' with LLMs, we can experiment more with ideal scenarios rather than a religious adherence to cross platform or single-framework merely for team DX simplicity.
Server side rendering makes sense for mostly static content, but for web applications, a front end framework and a back-end API are a much better match.
[dead]
If you think you are a terrible drawer, check out “Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain”.
Paying the bills? I could have mentioned proving a theorem related to an algorithm at work ... but LLMs are also helping there now. The best I can come up with is: reading a book related to my current projects.
Good luck with your search.
There is an issue with this idea - we write software, we read it, we make sure it does what it should do, that it’s implement in a sensible and efficient way, and, most importantly, we make sure the tests do what they should do.
If you no longer write the code, it’s harder to understand it. If you don’t write the tests, you need to trust the LLM did both jobs correctly (multiple adversarial LLMs can help), but, ultimately, it’s code you can no longer claim you understand. And you can’t really be sure it does what you want until you understand it.
That said, why do we think compilers produce correct code?
Everything is a nail at the moment.
Like people using LLMs to refactor. Refactoring is a solved problem, we've had decades to get nice tooling for this.
What a strange time. Kurt himself writes that they've had the best quarter ever, and yet he feels confident enough to steer the ship in a completely new direction.
If you don’t build the product that’ll kill your cash cow, your competitors will.
We've been transitioning in-memory caching for web apps to tiered or on-nvme caching. It's an order of magnitude slower, but no one really noticed.
Not reading generated webapp code is one thing. Blindly commiting OS code is a whole different dimension, as is writing production code in a language you don't even know how to read.
I think they're good at it for a variety of reasons, but it likely helps having a smaller and newer community than many languages, meaning less out of date guff clogging up the LLM sources.
Additionally, the features available in the BEAM and OTP mean the agents have built-in tools for many things that would require reaching for 3rd-party libraries or even additional services. This means less variability in design as the models will happily use all the language features human developers would have to learn about and understand over time to use effectively. Not that this isn't important, but I believe models do a better job steering you to obvious and optimal solutions with Elixir.
The new type system is only going to make it better.
I'm talking more about agents as a force multiplier for teams who do have engineering experience. They reduce the amount of specialized knowledge, time, and coordination required to get something built and maintained. The constraint gets meaningfully weaker.
An experienced engineer who understands software architecture, debugging, product constraints, etc. but isn't an expert in every native platform can increasingly use an agent to bridge some of those gaps. That's very different from vibecoding your way into production.
fwiw I think we're still very early in the process of re-thinking about how teams are organized and what skill sets they need.
One presentation, I think it was my favorite one, talked about how an LLM had a very difficult time understanding what happened in a class when the name of the class was poorly descriptive of that class behavior.
Good quality code still matters. The LLMs are based on language! Human language!
I'm missing something (as usual) because I don't see what's wrong with his statement.
___
If we are talking about the standard 3.5-inch High Density (HD) floppy disk, which is the universal cultural icon for "floppy disk" (and the save icon in your software), the capacity is exactly:
1,474,560 bytes
This is equal to 1,440 KB (using 1024-byte kilobytes).
It is marketed and universally referred to as 1.44 MB.
His binary size: 0.5 MB (approx. 512,000 bytes).
Floppy size: 1.44 MB (1,474,560 bytes).
The Preemptive "Reply-Guy" Shield
Now, just in case a Hacker News pedant is reading this and wants to argue that DHH was talking about a different format, here is the absolute certainty on the rest of the historical hardware:
3.5-inch Double Density (DD) (1980s): 720 KB. (A 0.5 MB file still fits easily without compression).
3.5-inch Extended Density (ED) (1987): 2.88 MB. (Fits five of his binaries).
5.25-inch High Density (1984): 1.2 MB. (Fits two of his binaries).
5.25-inch Double Density (1981): 360 KB.
8-inch Original IBM (1971): 80 KB.
__
Thank you, Gemini. Much appreciated. Also, I love the tone.
(You can tell that it is actually that LLM by it thinking that it is still 2024)
Overanalysing someone's spoken sentences isn't the badge of honour it might appear to be.
You've never made a minor mistake during a presentation? (I await your confident "no".)
Best thing you can do is get a fuzzy file search, but you'll learn the structure soon enough. Once you know it, you'll be very fast. I loved it when I used it professionally.
[deleted]
[dead]
I guess I could do it with AI now but still...
I don't particularly like DHH either but web software is definitely serious. Shopify (which you seem to have confused with Spotify) runs on Rails. So does GitHub.
Those are both huge platforms handling a ton of traffic. If GitHub isn't "serious software" then what is?
Is that "Serious Software"?
Reddit would have about 15 comments alluding without never revealing, all of them smart, classy and funny. The rest would be complete trash probably.
For reference, here are the definitions:
racist: a person who believes that a particular race is superior to others, or who discriminates against other races
fascism: any right-wing, authoritarian, nationalist ideology characterized by centralized, totalitarian governance, strong regimentation of the economy and society, and repression of criticism or opposition
[dead]
Think about why he compares gypsies to wolves, and talks about "self-preservation".
You might want to be pedantic and try to say he's not comparing them to wolves. He is the one who put those two sentences next to each other. You can choose to ignore the thing that feels obvious to others.
I know a lot of people are decently close to DHH in their feelings on this issue. I think that being publicly loud about these opinions that most people keep to themselves simply leads to wondering what his _actual_ deep opinions are. Think about what you say in private compared to what you say in public, and consider that he is writing in public.
A sentiment being common or not is a bit besides the point about whether it's authoritarian or fascistic or whatever.
If you remove the context and the implication from his post, you can make the argument that it's "just" a post saying "enforce immigration laws".
The problem is that the context and the implications are part of his post. He is communicating who he is and what he believes, and for you it's mostly a question of whether you're going to listen to it.
This whole line of discussion is had about DHH in particular decently often, and I find it kinda funny because even beyond all of this I've always heard that he's just kind of a disagreeable person anyways. But I suppose this industry pulls in a certain kind of annoying person.
Before that I'd have said he was on the edge, but now it's pretty clear cut.
Googling, I can find this:
https://x.com/dhh/status/1997275678555951451
Which refers to this:
https://www.bt.dk/samfund/brandfarligt-ny-maaling-viser-mass...
Both of these have a different definition of "remigration" than what you are using:
- deporting foreign nationals, not legal citizens
- deporting those foreign nationals if they have been convicted of a crime.
- nothing whatsoever to do with race, everything to do with (a) citizen status and (b) legally proven criminal behavior.
So: what you describe would be racist. What the article talks about that DHH was referring to clearly is not.
And please don't start with "dog whistle".
If you're going to accuse people of things, it does need to be them doing those things, not you interpreting.
If you can present clear evidence of him supporting actual ethnic cleansing, so not something that you somehow interpret as being equivalent, I am with you.
Everyone in the team has become simple
rubber-stampers for whatever the AI puts out.
1. Present a big AI PR to a fellow human for review 2. Understand a big AI PR, as a human reviewer
...is going to be a hero. This is one of the biggest unsolved problems of this new era.
I've been experimenting with this, but it's early days. My efforts are mostly along the lines of having AI generate artifacts that guide the reviewer through the PR in execution flow order, explaining the reason for changes along the way.
Previously, the tools in our field were free or trivial cost. Seems like that has changed, that's OK, there are models to solve that.
I teach a couple courses currently, there is an enormous gap between what my students can create with AI and what I can create with AI. I don't think it's that much smaller than the difference of what we can create without, the only difference is that the schedules are compressed.
Additionally, if I'm 10% more productive I don't get a 10% pay increase.
Mountains that were made out of molehills, an ever-growing heap of bullshit.
Later after you have lots of users and your hosting costs are rising, then you can rewrite it in a language that gets you closer to the machine. You won’t need to do any exploration at that point, and you’ll already know where the performance hot spots are. Of course I recommend Rust for that, but that is merely my personal preference.
If I name the price for actually developing apps no one will pay, there are only nerds nagging about how they are annoyed by web apps.
Main point is that even if you could slop out some code to have a mobile app there is enough of additional burden that makes it not really worth it when you can get away with web version that is good enough and you don’t have to care about all that bs coming with publishing and maintaining a mobile app or to be specific you need to maintain exactly 2 apps.
Buddy of mine pivoted to doing just SQL and road into retirement as a DBA.
With hindsight, we both wished we had gone all-in on SQL way back when.
On my 50s, learnt SQL around 1996, have used SQL across Access, Informix, DB2, Sybase SQL Server, MS SQL Server, Oracle, MySQL, Postgres, PrestoDB, Neo4j.
[dead]
There is no fixed pie of work that AI is taking from us. In this circumstance, increased productivity caused the company to just make more stuff, not lay off people (or avoid planned hires).
It is a real world example of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
It's that the benefits of that productivity won't go to the kinds of people that previously wanted to stay in engineering their whole career.
I'm not sure the Jevons Paradox applies because you're not just making engineering more efficient you're replacing it altogether with something much more commoditised.
People will gain from this but it won't be the same people.
SE is not like farming.
It's an interesting example in that a switch from web/React -> native seems like Jevons paradox from the perspective a developer considering "amount of effort I'd need to put in"
But Jevon's paradox is about consumption of a resource increasing. The resource being "developer effort" but the new supply all running inside GPUs and dev machines. He actually says he decreased their server deployment by 90%.
So on net, did they basically deliver their users a much nicer but functionally equivalent app, which in total now consumes less resources / spends less $ into the economy? And then the $10T question is to what degree this is representative of AI's effect.
Larger organizations might need more tooling/agents and better internal processes before they can see the full potential. I don't think ww, as an industry, are there yet, this tech started truly working less than a year ago.
Have you seen the older apps built by devs? or all the other bootstrap themes?
He is just promoting Shopify's vibe coding for merchants. I bet on Shopify pivoting to vibe coded Rust soon because of "security".
But to your other comment, are you professionally employed as a developer and still writing code by hand?
[deleted]
I watched it live, and a few actually in the show have very different perspective to what you suggest, they were just keep it to themselves and not posting it on twitter. Some did, but then deleted it.
And no one is questioning he doesn't like ruby anymore. But it was obvious there was nothing much said about the future of Ruby and Rails.
With an agent on a greenfield is when I’m most reliant on a framework for good standards and a clear architecture.
This is one of the things Rails does really well.
Instead you can do layoff by attrition, you stop hiring, and you don't backfill seats, as people naturally leave or get pip-ed, the team shrink, you don't rehire into the position, and in a year or two, you cut down by 10%.
Also, I wouldn't trivialize a freeze in hiring growth, it means to get a job you have to wait for someone to retire, and also wait for people looking for jobs with more experience as they're more likely to fill the roll to also retire. Basically there's now way more demand for jobs than hiring, so that will drive compensation down for those currently employed.
We can't hire or give anyone raises, but we will expect you to be more productive via throwing money into the slop void.
i see your point and i want to tell you it's pretty much the same with cloud computing, which is so much more expensive than running your own hardware... and yet nobody's really questioning cloud computing (except the oxide people, but they're still tiny)
the company i work for could probably spent half its yearly cloud bill in hardware and be fine for 3-5 years.
guess who discovered the same thing and booted google cloud off their books? dhh
that guy is simply enlightened.
as a solo: you can build and ship more in your own time
as a startup: you can iterate and scale more with more velocity and less growing pains
as an enterprise: people with ideas but not a technical background can put their tokens where their mouth is and build their own interfaces, personal apps, ask their own questions, ship their own features without having to navigate layer 8 and play games for resources
Why do you think 100% of all companies will choose the first? Obviously some will choose the latter, hence it sounds like layoffs.
Talking point: I think it is communication, and AI (notably information exchange in “Claudish”) is not as effective there.
Making the widget cheaper doesn't necessarily create demand either. I will not buy 10 times more toothbrushes or writing pens if their prices suddenly decreased to 1 cent.
The demand for software or features will not increase at the speed of our ability to produce them.
Right now, the vibe at my company is not “we can save so much money with AI” it’s “here’s an infinite budget, use all the tokens you can to expand our moat because we’ve never been more sensitive to competitive disruption than we are now”
[dead]
Most users don’t care. What they do care about is performance, and native is usually the easiest way to get there.
For your AI workflow questions, it depends. With or without AI, those decisions depend on the organisation’s direction, the team’s capabilities, and their preferences. Did your org have a single answer for the best programming language, framework, or workflow even before AI? There was never a single right answer to any of that.
You have little to no control over privacy, tracking or advertising compared to the web. That's left to the original developer and there's nothing you can do about it.
You can't do things like disable autoplaying videos. Often you can't even copy text without taking a screen shot. On a phone it's also much easier to zoom random parts of the screen in a browser compared to a native app.
There are legitimate reasons to prefer the web to native apps.
What has always been true is that users often have no choice or voice to express their actual desires. It's not like there is a public alternative here (when there should be).
Rails comes with the console by default, so production inspection of a bug is something the ai can do without a ton of bs to be set up, and that console can be forced to be auditable (using standard gems) or read only (using flags).
I used to love rust, still do sorta, but yeah I think this is really not a good argument against a tool that operationally is better at most things at being observed or poked or prodded or tested in production
All this static vs dynamic stuff doesn’t really matter anymore. AI doesn’t care. You just need to close the feedback loop with tests, linting, a compiler, or whatever else gives it a clear signal.
Simple as that.
I do agree "background" is vague, but I generally assume the minimal threshold to say that is something like a previous career, undergraduate degree, or graduate degree in the background. I personally wouldn't say I had a background in something I was only an amateur enthusiast of.
---
That being said, what on earth gives you the idea a substantial background in sociology WOULDN'T be relevant here?
Appeal to authority is a bias for a reason. In this case it wasn't even that well executed.
A "background in software development" (an HR or a marketing girl in the website design sweatshop) does not give enough relevance and authority to speak about the technical details of Linux kernel. Vice versa.
Examples of these claims?
Crichton's Law: unwittingly serving as the best example of one's own snarky law.
Incidentally, this is also the fundamental flaw with Crichton's original description of the effect which questioned the accuracy of reporting about international affairs. When it comes to politics, simply having access to important leaders and meetings and reporting on them accurately and fairly is the only "journalistic expertise" you need.
Of course, the even broader problem with the concept is that, in reality, there are some articles written by journalists that contain a reasonable understanding of the subject matter, and some articles that do not. So seeing an article written about your field of expertise that contains misunderstandings doesn't by itself tell you anything about the distribution of good and bad articles covering any particular field.
His exact words from the blog:
"In 2000, more than sixty percent of the city were native Brits. By 2024, that had dropped to about a third."
White Brits are the only native/indigenous Brits to London. It's not misleading, it's just a fact. He did not interpret this fact incorrectly.
DHH or anyone else spouting opinions on social media is hardly qualified to be setting policies for countries. Social media is also hardly the place to have any sort of debate on those topics.
It tends to only be when someone is egregiously wrong or (as in the case IMO) acting in deliberate bad faith on a topic of massive public concern, like this. Because these people are a waste of psychological resources.
I totally write off proselytising antivaxxers who I think should have reason to know better, I tend to write off climate change deniers who should know better, and yes, I tend to write off educated people who mislead with statistics to create intellectual cover for xenophobic, bigoted thugs and their antisocial campaigns.
This is not an exhaustive list, but it’s a good one. Other people who get written off tend to have a nasty streak on a topic of some divisiveness. For example I am not religious but not anti-religious; I am anti being deliberately or loudly cruel, posturing or nasty about it either way. People who are like that can be like that, but they will not get to tell me about their professional interests as if their awful behaviour is just a quirk.
YMMV, but I am now middle aged and I don’t have the time for this anymore. Freedom of speech isn’t without consequences for loss of respect. If you think my position awful or lily-livered you are fully within your rights to let it colour your judgement of my opinions on technology.
Lying about your opponents just make them look good. We should all have learnt this lesson from the Trump fiasco.
If you like his politics then good for you, no need to make things up about a country you don't understand.
[dead]
The issue with the Romani is that they refuse to integrate. Or rather, the people we call the Romani are the people left after parts of their population DID integrate and now are just a part of society. It's selection really.
What do you do with a population like this that is actively belligerent? The Nazis solution was extermination, and I obviously think that's very immoral. Just letting them walk all over us is also immoral. Forced integration by breaking them up into individual families isolated from each other and performing cultural genocide? Also immoral.
This is a classic dilemma. There's no good option here. But pretending there isn't a dilemma is just fooling yourself.
Back in the very early days you would have used script/plugin install (svn url)
Here's one of my mirror repositories migrated from SVN into git. https://github.com/jaggederest/acts_as_voteable
However Rust has one serious problem, BUILDS. It’s slow and it takes up a ton of space and memory. You will be working around this on any sizeable codebase. Using cargo check to ration your compiles, a dedicated build box, etc. Now imagine you're using it for a web application with compiled maud templates... you're potentially waiting minutes to see your changes.
If we accept that over half of the people building with rust are using agents (I'm sure this is much higher in reality), then you should also accept that there is a ton of time and resources spent on building / compiling. Optimizing this should probably be a top priority. They need someone who will be fanatical about shaving time and memory use from the build process.
Maybe there will be one day, but what are the odds that it will meaningfully move the needle for existing platforms such that manual code review is unnecessary? "Blindly trust the output" is not a feasible security posture today.
1. You get complexity back at the speed that you add code. Also the complexity compounds.
2. As a human you are still responsible for your code, and you need to understand how the important parts of the code base work.
When you combine these problems, you get a complicated code base where you don't understand the important parts.
That is why software design is getting a comeback. It actually helps with both problems. Less complexity and more understanding.
Which invariably means that businesses who incorrectly believe that their vibe coded solution will withstand the trials and tribulations of production will be needing even more professional help when it all goes wrong.
Everything old is new again.
Is squeezing a lot more performance beneficial to a business? or is it a small amount of VPS cost per month difference?
It helps to be clear, at least with yourself, about if you're doing something because you can/want to or if there are actual business reasons.
The web makes apps worse by forcing a fairly strict sandbox, even as Google keeps trying to loosen it. Think of a messaging app that hides in your notification tray, that's a trivial UX thing that's impossible on the web.
Elixir runs on the BEAM which lets you do hot code reloading process at a time. And these are much more lightweight than your typical OS process. So you can do things on the BEAM which would be just crazy to do on other achitectures. Like if you have a server which needs to support a million users, it would be insanity to run a million separate OS processes for the job. But BEAM processes are so lightweight that you can do that, which gives each one isolation from misbehavior of the others.
And since these support hot code reloading, without restarting the BEAM's OS process, you can patch the code for your user's sliver of the server and do a sort of "what-if" experiment. Other architectures would require you to implement separate test environments or complicated feature flag systems, but the beam lets you just reach out and change it for just the process you care about--you're not baking the experiment into an OSI image or anything so dangerous as that... blast radius is kept small.
And the steps for carrying out this experiment, it's all doable at the elixir shell. You connect to the BEAM and make changes. That's a tremendous reduction in context that an agent needs to load--context which would otherwise instruct the agent about how to reason about the deploy process and how to wall off your experiment from others so as to not cause problems with it is just answered implicitly by how the BEAM works.
Elixir compiles to BEAM bytecode, so you get all of this because the BEAM is cool. As for Elixir as a language... I don't think there's anything agent-specific about it. Gleam might be a better choice since it's statically typed and also compiles to BEAM bytecode except that it's not as popular as Elixir, which is probably more important.
You can also do all of this in the language that started it all: Erlang (Java : JVM :: Erlang : BEAM) but it's not exactly fashionable at present (similar to java vs like... kotlin or clojure or something).
Disclaimer: I'm more of a fan than a seasoned pro. I'd love to actually be working with this stuff daily, but my team wouldn't have it because they prefer familiar things and pain.
Alongside this framing is seemingly no admission or acknowledgement that crimes have been and still are perpetrated by "normal Brits" as well; the focus is entirely on the barbarians coming from outside to maraud. It's as though he attaches criminality to foreignness.
He also steps all over the line of what a "native" Brit is. Seemingly not someone born there, but, according to statistics he is certainly referring to white Brits.
The list goes on. The man is racist. I don't think being anti-large scale immigration is inherently racist at all. As a Canadian I have substantial concerns about how immigration is conducted, and I don't consider that racist. But very, very little of what DHH thinks, or how he frames his ideas, ever crosses my mind. I don't think about preserving 'real' or 'normal' Canadians. I think a lot about how immigrants have made my country better. I don't internally or explicitly associate crime with immigration. It's much different.
[deleted]
Also generally in Denmark gypsy is a pejorative (sigøjner). One could go on and on, there's no overreach to the racist claim by any means.
He's not bumbling into these situations, he knows very well what he's doing.
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
But no, those words you made up don't speak to an idea I have.
>> There's a reason why the last known wolf in Denmark didn't just wander off, but was shot dead in 1813.
>> When wolves get out of control, you shoot them.
> When wolves get out of control, you shoot them. When gypsies take over public spaces, you deport them.
So no, he's not talking about hunting and killing the humans.
This isn't even his personal blog. It's the company blog of Hey that he's using to push his views. Do you really wanna work with a company whose professional blog references "[insert ethnicity] rape gangs" and "the decline of Europe". He could go full Kanye at any point.
Gypsies are a major problem in a lot of cities in Europe... What would be a politically correct way to say that today ?
What is the "politically correct" way to say "Jewish people are a problem"? Roma people ("gypsy" is a racial slur for them) were also targets of the Holocaust. As many as 500,000 people may have been put in death camps—justified by views like those expressed here.
Where do you propose to "deport" Roma people who have been present in most of Europe since the 13th century?
I don't think there is a "correct" way to say "[insert ethnicity] are a major problem". It is simply scientifically/historically/objectively incorrect.
https://world.hey.com/dhh/three-sacred-cows-that-must-die-so...
> Because the sacred cow here is not just that mass migration must stop going forward. It's also that millions who are already in Europe must go. Remigration has gone from a fringe concept to the mainstream discourse in record time on account of that realization.
Says nothing about (a) race or (b) citizens.
On the other hand, he specifically writes about "hard problems like cultural integration between wildly different ways of living."
So culture, not race.
So exactly as I wrote: he talks about non-citizens and you turn it into "race".
Who is the racist?
He is very clearly talking about race.
There's no issue with acknowledging that cultural integration between different races can cause issues, nor is it unreasonable to limit immigration on that basis. It's completely insane to deport people who are now legal residents based on their race.
Obviously he's not going to say "blacks go home". He's too smart for that, come on.
2. As far as I can see, the position that DHH referred to did not apply to naturalized citizens, but to foreigners. So non-citizens.
3. As far as I know, most countries currently have laws on the books that can result in citizenship being revoked. As an example, countries that don't allow dual citizenship will take your citizenship away if you become citizen of another country. Germany and many other countries will take your citizenship away if you lied on your application and it only comes out later. Terror and treason are also common reasons.
4. Some counties (India for example) will even take your (naturalized) citizenship away if you are out of country long enough.
But there is a "dead middle".
If you have a big cash flow to go with "...lots of users and [rising] hosting costs" then, yes, you're spot on
But if there is insufficient cash flow then costs are rising and you are a bit stuck.
But it wasn't.
Or are you arguing that this is a natural process and politicians can't influence it? Wrong. Pre-post Brexit stats show the opposite. As do the stats from Denmark, after politicians started working on the issue.
You are fine with stats, but don't like DHH's opinions about those facts? Well, those are opinions and everyone has a right to them. Opinions and feelings based on morals can't really be proved incorrect.
Or are you tone policing?
So what exactly is the actual problem? "Someone on the internet has wrong opinions and is not a carbon copy of me, politically"? What a silly and totalitarian behavior to call other people dirty names!
No other framework comes close, and telling me that I can have my agents cobble together this same baseline, badly, from a hodgepodge of new code and random libraries is not compelling.
There is no MBA like magical growth, the amount of customers is a physical limitation of inhabitants on planet Earth that are willing to actually use a specific piece of software, regardless of how productive it was made in first place.
You're mixing nationality, a piece of paper, with being "native", an ethnic group. Does not work in countries across Europe, Japan, Korea, etc. The settling of the USA and its cultural dominance has broken peoples brains. Europe is inhabited by its indigenous people!
The English are an ethnic group (ask 23andMe) and they are the founding stock of Great Britain. Source - the far right extremist wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_people
London was 97.7% white in 1960. Now it is around 50%, and falling. Again, source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_London
Is that good or bad? Leave that one up for debate, I mostly care about facts.
I don’t actually believe this statistic, as an aside, but if we stipulate that it is true, it still doesn’t remotely mean 97.7% “ethnic English”. That’s a radically wrong implication.
It’s a little closer to DHH’s point about the percentage of British people (the Welsh, Scots and Northern Irish are not simply “ethnic English”).
But it’s still very wrong. At that point it was a ninteeen-hundred-year old working international port city, it has had a large population of Jews of European descent for centuries (the first large community being so notable that they were discriminated against in Magna Carta, after all), various displaced populations after WWI and WWII, a very large Irish population, thousands of Italians, many Dutch.
In the 1800s French Huguenot refugees and their immediate descendants made up perhaps ten per cent of the population of London (figures vary, considerably, could be 3% or nearer 15% depending on the boundary definition you choose and that at the time of their arrival the UK had no formal immigration policy so no exact numbers — but over 200,000 settled in mainland Britain). A truly astonishing number arrived and the city simply made room. But they didn’t leave; they assimilated. Same thing happened with Dutch exile craftsmen.
This happens a lot in London’s history: https://refugeeweek.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Historyof...
So he is wrong (and IMO ought to have known some of this) and you are not at all on the right track either.
People just have no grasp of the nearly unique reality of London as a historical melting pot. By 1960 its diversity was eclipsed by American cities like New York, Chicago and Philadelphia, but this idea that London was somehow traditionally “ethnically British” to the point of being a quaint monoculture is fully crackers. Just not true. The difference since 1960 is just more visible because we started adding more literal colour from the Commonwealth.
A place worth visiting for Brits who don't believe this and tourists who are interested:
https://www.londonmuseum.org.uk/docklands/
Super-cool museum space dedicated to London as a port city.
you obviously know this because you know what "native americans" means.
Bullshit. They are Johann Come Later Germans who killed off the Celtic Brits.
https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2015-03-19-who-do-you-think-you-re...
And of course the Celtic Britons replaced the Neolithic farmers, who replaced the Mesolithic foragers, and so on. "Indigenous" becomes meaningless with so many population replacements.
Ignoring dhh because he's offensive is totally reasonable and if that's what you meant well that's different.
Ok. And? This was not the statement I objected to. Just because there isn't a mainstream major party right of him, doesn't mean he's to the most right there is in the universe. Those are completely different things.
Where do you propose to "deport" Roma people who have been present in most of Europe since the 13th century?
This isn't a matter of "political" correctness. This is a matter of scientific correctness. There is not scientifically correct way to express this view because it is simply baseless racism.
> "The historically common term 'Gypsy' is based on the myth that they came from Egypt. In reality, the ancestors of the Romani migrated out of India in the 1st millennium CE."
Egypt isn't a race.
> Where do you propose to "deport" Roma people
I don't propose anything, I asked a couple questions. But if you want me to interpret the position for you: you deport Roma people, and any other foreigners, back to the country they have citizenship in. Their origin is somewhere, and it's racist of you to treat all gypsies as one group.
For any that are citizens of the country in question: well, you don't deport them anywhere. That's not what it means.
> justified by views like those expressed here
No. Sending people home is not the same as genocide, and you really have to work hard at misunderstanding things to have them conflated.
> Anti-Roma racism is a manifestation of individual expressions and acts as well as institutional policies and practices of marginalization, exclusion, physical violence, devaluation of Roma cultures and lifestyles, and hate speech directed at Roma as well as other individuals and groups perceived, stigmatized, or persecuted during the Nazi era, and still today, as “Gypsies.” This leads to the treatment of Roma as an alleged alien group and associates them with a series of pejorative stereotypes and distorted images that represent a specific form of racism.
> Anti-Roma racism did not start with or end after the Nazi era but continues to be a central element in crimes perpetrated against Roma. In spite of the important work done by the United Nations, the European Union, the Council of Europe, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, and other international bodies, the stereotypes and prejudices about Roma have not been delegitimized or discredited vigorously enough so that they continue to persist and can be deployed largely unchallenged.
---
> Sending people home is not the same as genocide
Home to where? Roma people have been widespread in Europe since the 13th century
You are.
And he's not talking about deporting citizens.
You are.
And I’m not saying anyone’s opinions are wrong, I’m just saying calls to violence, such as DHH’s suggested deportations of people based solely on their skin color, are not opinions. Violence mustn’t be re-labeled as an opinion. Advocating for harming people or violating their agency cannot pass as political position, not even fringe one. You are free to have opinions, values and beliefs, but don’t think other people will be fine with that when your opinion starts affecting their lives. No matter what someone’s external appearance makes you think about a person, they also have opinions, values and beliefs.
(This just a short summary of what basic human decency is.)
The country they were born in / have citizenship in.