Full Width 
Shortcuts 
Sign Up 
Log In 
Articles 
Reading List More from Founder's blog
TL;DR The "build vs. buy" equation has flipped. Businesses used to buy SaaS because it was cheaper than building their own. AI has changed that—building your own is now more affordable than ever. The discovery problem. AI recommendations default to well-established solutions. Think SEO is a long game? Try LLM SEO. Everyone worries about AI taking developer jobs, but what if AI wipes out the entire off-the-shelf software industry? The "Why Buy?" Problem Six months ago, we needed an AI-powered code review tool. We explored several options and ultimately "vibe-coded" our own GitHub Action—a simple Bash script that takes a git log, sends it to Claude via curl, and posts the results to Slack. Done. The best part? AI wrote the entire thing faster than it would take to sign up for a SaaS. How long until every company realizes they can do this? Need a simple "CRUD" CRM with JIRA-style tasks? Done. Need a mobile time-tracking app for remote employees? AI will spit out a React Native iOS build in minutes. Why pay for yet another SaaS when you can "vibe-code" something in a week? And mark my words, LLM providers are one step away from actually hosting the code they generate. Who needs to spawn an AWS server if you can just ask OpenAI to host the code it just wrote? - "Hey Siri! build me a Basecamp, but with green buttons, also register a domain, spawn a server and host it all there, charge this credit card when you're done" - "Absolutely, that'd be $1.17 per hour" The Discovery Problem AI doesn’t just make it easier to build software—it makes it harder for new SaaS products to get discovered. When you ask AI for recommendations, it defaults to the biggest names. And not just in SaaS, by the way, in open source too. Imagine launching a killer new JS framework today. AI coding assistants and tools like Cursor will just default to React anyway. And not even the latest version of it! In a recent tweet Adam Wathan, the creator of Tailwind, asked: "Has anyone migrated to Tailwind 4.0 yet?" The most popular response was "Nah! we're still waiting for LLMs to learn it." AI isn’t just "the next internet moment." It’s more like "the social network moment." Echo chambers get louder, big names get bigger, and smaller ones disappear into the noise. What Can SaaS Companies Do? 1. Become an Industry Standard Or at least a "go-to" product in a niche. If your app becomes something people mention on their CVs or job descriptions, you win. Examples: Slack. HubSpot. Salesforce etc. A salesperson moving to a new company simply expects Salesforce to be there. That kind of lock-in ensures survival. 2. Build Moats: Infrastructure & Vendor Lock-In SaaS products that are just CRUD apps will die. The ones that survive will own infrastructure or at least some part of it. Instead of building another AI voice assistant, create one with built-in VoIP and provide landline numbers to customers. Examples: Transistor.fm – Not just a SaaS, but also a podcast hosting and publishing pipeline. Postmark (or any transactional email service really) – yes, AI can code an email-sending app, but it can't get you a 10-year old high-reputation sender IP address trusted by Gmail and Outlook. SignWell, SavvyCal and similar "inter-business" file-sharing, communication & escrow apps that own the communication part (and frankly, are literally easier to use than vibe-code your own). But prepare for tthousands of clones. Which SaaS Will Die First? Side-project-scale, "one simple tool" SaaS products that used to be easy wins—form builders, schedulers, basic dashboards, simple workflow apps—those days are over. If AI can generate it in an afternoon, no one is paying a subscription for it. Oh, and "no code" is toasted too. The SaaS graveyard is about to get a lot more crowded. I give it 4 years. Software consulting is making a comeback though. Someone has to clean up the vibe-coded chaos.
TL;DR The "build vs. buy" equation has flipped. Businesses used to buy SaaS because it was cheaper than building their own. AI has changed that—building your own is now more affordable than ever. The discovery problem. AI recommendations default to well-established solutions. Think SEO is a long game? Try LLM SEO. Everyone worries about AI taking developer jobs, but what if AI wipes out the entire off-the-shelf software industry? The "Why Buy?" Problem Six months ago, we needed an AI-powered code review tool. We explored several options, tested them all, and ultimately "vibe-coded" our own GitHub Action—a simple Bash script that takes a git log, sends it to Claude via curl, and posts the results to Slack. Done. The best part? AI wrote the entire thing—faster than it took to sign up for another SaaS. How long until every company realizes they can do this? Need a simple CRM with JIRA-style tasks? Done. Need a mobile time-tracking app for remote employees? AI will spit out a React Native iOS build in minutes. Why pay for yet another SaaS when you can "vibe-code" something in a week? The Discovery Problem AI doesn’t just make it easier to build software—it makes it harder for new SaaS products to get discovered. When you ask AI for recommendations, it defaults to the biggest names. Here’s an open-source analogy: imagine launching a game-changing JS framework today. AI coding assistants and tools like Cursor will still default to React. And not even the latest version! Adam Wathan recently asked on Twitter, "Has anyone migrated to Tailwind 4.0 yet?" The most popular response was "Nah! we're still waiting for LLMs to learn it." AI isn’t just "the next internet moment." It’s more like "the social network moment." Echo chambers get louder, big names get bigger, and smaller ones disappear into the noise. What Can SaaS Companies Do? 1. Become an Industry Standard Or at least a "go-to" product in a niche. If your app becomes something people mention on their CVs or job descriptions, you win. Examples: Slack. HubSpot. Salesforce etc. A salesperson moving to a new company simply expects Salesforce to be there. That kind of lock-in ensures survival. 2. Build Moats: Infrastructure & Vendor Lock-In SaaS products that are just CRUD apps will die. The ones that survive will own infrastructure. Examples: Transistor.fm – Not just a SaaS, but also a podcast hosting and distribution pipeline. Postmark (or any transactional email service really) – AI can code an email-sending app, but it can't get you a 10-year old high-reputation sender IP address trusted by Gmail and Outlook. SignWell and similar B2B file-sharing apps (literally easier to use then code your own). Don't just build another CRUD sales CRM, build a CRM with an inbound VoIP number – because AI can’t replace telco infrastructure (yet). Which SaaS Will Die First? Side-project-scale, "one simple tool" SaaS products that used to be easy wins—Calendly replacements, form builders, schedulers, basic dashboards, simple workflow apps—those days are over. If AI can generate it in an afternoon, no one is paying a subscription for it. Oh, and "no code" is toasted too. The SaaS graveyard is about to get a lot more crowded. I give it 4 years. Software consulting is making a comeback though. Someone has to clean up the vibe-coded chaos.
I mean, it is! But the whole story about the stock market reacting to the news about DeepSeek V3 and R1 is a fine example of the knee-jerk nature of mass consciousness in the era of clickbait economics. Briefly, by points: No, DeepSeek isn’t “head and shoulders above” every other model. The results vary across benchmarks, but on average, GPT-4o and Gemini-2 are better. You can see this on ChatBot Arena, for example (Reddit thread). Even in the results published by DeepSeek’s authors themselves (benchmark graph), you can see that in several tests, the model lags behind GPT-4o from May 2024—which, mind you, is currently ranked 16th on ChatBot Arena. No, training DeepSeek didn’t cost $6 million, “100 times less than GPT-4.” The $6 million figure refers only to the final training run of the published model. It doesn’t include any prior experiments, earlier versions, or R&D costs. This is just the raw computational cost of that final training run. And guess what? That figure is pretty much in line with models of the same class. No, Nvidia did not deserve this hit Not that we’re shedding tears for them — they could use a push to lower hardware prices. And let's not forget that DeepSeek was still trained on Nvidia’s own hardware. And no, their GPUs aren’t suddenly obsolete. DeepSeek’s computational budget is fairly standard for training, and inference for such a massive model (reminder: it’s an MoE with 671 billion parameters, 37 billion of which are active per token generation) requires a ton of hardware. Inference costs are roughly on par with a 70B dense model. Naturally, they’ll scale this success by throwing even more hardware at it and making the model bigger. Not to mention that Deepseek makes LLMs more accessible for the on-prem customers. Which means smaller businesses will buy more GPU's, which is still good for NVDA, am I right? Does this mean the model is bad? No, the model is very, VERY good. It outperforms the vast majority of open-source models, which is fantastic. DeepSeek used 8-bit floating point numbers (FP8) throughout the entire training process. This sacrifices some of that precision to save memory and boost performance. Additionally, they employed a multi-token prediction system and innovative GPU clustering/connectivity techniques. These are clever and practical engineering choices that undoubtedly contributed to their success. In the end, though, stocks will recover, ideas will spread, models will get better, and progress will march on (hopefully).
After years of working with the "big" Visual Studio, I've had enough. It's buggy, slow, and frustrating, and I've decided to make the switch to Visual Studio Code. While as a C# developer I'm still unsure if I can replicate every aspect of my workflow in VS Code, I'm willing to give it a shot—and so far, I'm really impressed. 1. Performance Visual Studio 2022 performance has been a constant issue. It's sluggish and feels increasingly bloated with every new update. It's like watching paint dry every time I open a project. In contrast, Visual Studio Code feels lightweight and incredibly fast. The first time I opened my large project in VS Code, I was shocked — it loaded in lees than a second, literally, even with extensions like "C#" and "C# Dev Kit" installed. 2. Better Developer Experience Running dotnet watch run in VS Code's terminal has been a revelation. It's fast, responsive, and actually works consistently. Visual Studio's "hot reload" feature, on the other hand, has been a constant source of frustration for me. Half the time it doesn't work, and I'm left restarting debugging sessions over and over again. I can't tell you how many hours I've lost to that unreliable feature. 3. Fewer Bugs, Less Frustration The minor editor bugs in Visual Studio have been endless and exhausting. I remember one particularly infuriating bug where syntax highlighting would break in Razor and .cshtml files whenever I used certain HTML tags or even just adjusted the indentation. It drove me up the wall! Not to mention the bizarre issues with JavaScript formatting that never seemed to get fixed. Since switching to VS Code, I've encountered far fewer bugs. It just feels like an environment that respects my time and sanity. 4. A Thriving Ecosystem The VS Code extension ecosystem is alive and thriving. Need Tailwind CSS IntelliSense? There's an extension for that, and it works beautifully. Want to visualize your Git history for a particular line (better version of git-blame)? The Git History extension has got you covered. In "big" Visual Studio, I'd report issues through the "feedback hub" and wait months — or even years — for a response. With VS Code, the community is constantly contributing new tools and improvements. It's energizing (and sometimes exhausting) to be part of such an active ecosystem. 5. Cross-Platform Flexibility One of the biggest advantages I've found with Visual Studio Code is its true cross-platform support. Whether I'm on my Windows PC gaming rig at home or my MacBook while traveling, VS Code runs smoothly and keeps my workflow consistent. Visual Studio's limited macOS version just doesn't cut it for me. Being able to switch between machines without missing a beat has been a game-changer. I have to admit, I was skeptical at first. I've always had a bit of a grudge against Electron-based apps — they've often felt sluggish and bloated. But VS Code has completely changed my perspective. It's fast, responsive, and flexible enough to let me build the development environment that works best for me. Switching to VS Code has rekindled my passion for coding; it reminds me why I fell in love with development in the first place. While Visual Studio will always have its strengths, I need a tool that evolves with me—not one that holds me back.
More in programming
When you're just getting started with music, you have so many skills to learn. You have to be able to play your instrument and express yourself through it. You need to know the style you're playing, and its idioms and conventions. You may want to record your music, and need all the skills that come along with it. Music is, mostly, subjective: there's not an objective right or wrong way to do things. And that can make it really hard! Each of these skills is then couched in this subjectivity of trying to see if it's good enough. Playing someone else's music, making a cover, is great because it can make it objective. It gives you something to check against. When you're playing your own music, you're in charge of the entire thing. You didn't play a wrong note, because, well, you've just changed the piece! But when you play someone else's music, now there's an original and you can try to get as close to it as possible. Recreating it gives you a lot of practice in figuring out what someone did and how they did it. It also lets you peek into why they did it. Maybe a particular chord voicing is hard for you to play. Okay, let's simplify it and play an easier voicing. How does it sound now? How does it sound with the harder one? Play around with those differences and you start to see the why behind it all. * * * The same thing holds true for programming. One of my friends is a C++ programmer[1] and he was telling me about how he learned C++ and data structures really well early on: He reimplemented parts of the Boost library. This code makes heavy use of templates, a hard thing in C++. And it provides fundamental data structures with robust implementations and good performance[2]. What he would do is look at the library and pick a slice of it to implement. He'd look at what the API for it is, how it was implemented, what it was doing under the hood. Then he'd go ahead and try to do it himself, without any copy-pasting and without real-time copying from the other screen. Sometimes, he'd run into things which didn't make sense. Why is this a doubly-linked list here, when it seems a singly-linked list would do just fine? And in those moments, if you can't find a reason? You get to go down that path, make it the singly-linked version, and then find out later: oh, ohhh. Ohhhh, they did that for a reason. It lets you run into some of the hard problems, grapple with them, and understand why the original was written how it was. You get to study with some really strong programmers, by proxy via their codebase. Their code is your tutor and your guide for understanding how to write similar things in the future. * * * There's a lot of judgment out there about doing original works. This kind of judgment of covers and of reimplementing things that already exist, just to learn. So many people have internalized this, and I've heard countless times "I want to make a new project, but everything I think of, someone else has already done!" And to that, I say: do it anyway[3]. If someone else has done it, that's great. That means that you had an idea so good that someone else thought it was a good idea, too. And that means that, because someone else has done it, you have a reference now. You can compare notes, and you can see how they did it, and you can learn. I'm a recovering C++ programmer myself, and had some unpleasant experiences associated with the language. This friend is a game developer, and his industry is one where C++ makes a lot of sense to use because of the built-up code around it. ↩ He said they're not perfect, but that they're really good and solid and you know a lot of people thought for a long time about how to do them. You get to follow in their footsteps and benefit from all that hard thinking time. ↩ But: you must always give credit when you are using someone else's work. If you're reimplementing someone else's library, or covering someone's song, don't claim it's your own original invention. ↩
A key feature of Bazel is its ability to produce fast, reliable builds by caching the output of actions.
AltTab solves a simple problem really well: it brings Windows-style Alt + Tab window switching to Mac OS. That’s it. That’s all there is to it. I think Windows way of Alt - tabbing windows is better than Mac’s. It’s a must for someone like me, who switches between using Windows and Mac OS. That small difference drove me mad when using Mac so super thankful someone wrote an app that fixes it. It’s free and open source so no excuse to not to use it.
One of my side quests at work is to get a simple feedback loop going where we can create knowledge bases that comment on Notion documents. I was curious if I could hook this together following these requirements: No custom code hosting Prompt is editable within Notion rather than requiring understanding of Zapier Should be be fairly quickly Ultimately, I was able to get it working. So a quick summary of how it works, some comments on why I don’t particularly like this approach, then some more detailed comments on getting it working. General approach Create a Notion database of prompts. Create a specific prompt for providing feedback on RFCs. Create a Notion database for all RFCs. Add an automation into this database that calls a Zapier webhook. The Zapier webhook does a variety of things that culminate in using the RFC prompt to provide feedback on the specific RFC as a top-level comment in the RFC. Altogether this works fairly well. The challenges with this approach The best thing about this approach is that it actually works, and it works fairly well. However, as we dig into the implementation details, you’ll also see that a series of things are unnaturally difficult with Zapier: Managing rich text in Notion because it requires navigating the blocks datastructure Allowing looping API constructs such as making it straightforward to leave multiple comments on specific blocks rather than a single top-level comment Notion only allows up to 2,000 characters per block, but chunking into multiple blocks is moderately unnatural. In a true Python environment, it would be trivial to translate to and from Markdown using something like md2notion Ultimately, I could only recommend this approach as an initial validation. It’s definitely not the right long-term resting place for this kind of approach. Zapier implementation I already covered the Notion side of the integration, so let’s dig into the Zapier pieces a bit. Overall it had eight steps. I’ve skipped the first step, which was just a default webhook receiver. The second step was retrieving a statically defined Notion page containing the prompt. (In later steps I just use the Notion API directly, which I would do here if I was redoing this, but this worked too. The advantage of the API is that it returns a real JSON object, this doesn’t, probably because I didn’t specify the content-type header or some such.) This is the configuration page of step 2, where I specify the prompt’s page explicitly. ) Probably because I didn’t set content-type, I think I was getting post formatted data here, so I just regular expressed the data out. It’s a bit sloppy, but hey it worked, so there’s that. ) Here is using the Notion API request tool to retrieve the updated RFC (as opposed to the prompt which we already retrieved). ) The API request returns a JSON object that you can navigate without writing regular expressions, so that’s nice. ) Then we send both the prompt as system instructions and the RFC as the user message to Open AI. ) Then pass the response from OpenAI to json.dumps to encode it for being included in an API call. This is mostly solving for newlines being \n rather than literal newlines. ) Then format the response into an API request to add a comment to the document. Anyway, this wasn’t beautiful, and I think you could do a much better job by just doing all of this in Python, but it’s a workable proof of concept.
When working on big JavaScript web apps, you can split the bundle in multiple chunks and import selected chunks lazily, only when needed. That makes the main bundle smaller, faster to load and parse. How to lazy import a module? let hljs = await import("highlight.js").default; is equivalent of: import hljs from "highlight.js"; Now: let libZip = await import("@zip.js/zip.js"); let blobReader = new libZip.BlobReader(blob); Is equivalent to: import { BlobReader } from "@zip.js/zip.js"; It’s simple if we call it from async function but sometimes we want to lazy load from non-async function so things might get more complicated: let isLazyImportng = false; let hljs; let markdownIt; let markdownItAnchor; async function lazyImports() { if (isLazyImportng) return; isLazyImportng = true; let promises = await Promise.all([ import("highlight.js"), import("markdown-it"), import("markdown-it-anchor"), ]); hljs = promises[0].default; markdownIt = promises[1].default; markdownItAnchor = promises[2].default; } We can run it from non-async function: function doit() { lazyImports().then( () => { if (hljs) { // use hljs to do something } }) } I’ve included protection against kicking of lazy import more than once. That means on second and n-th call we might not yet have the module loaded so hljs will be still undefined.
