Jason Fried writes in his post “Knives and battleships”: Specific tools and familiar ingredients combined in different ratios, different molds, for different purposes. Like a baker working from the same tight set of pantry ingredients to make a hundred distinct recipes. You wouldn't turn to them and say "enough with the butter, flour, sugar, baking powder, and eggs already!" Getting the same few things right in different ways is a career's worth of work. Mastery comes from a lifetime of putting together the basics in different combinations. I think of Beethoven’s 5th and its famous “short-short-short-long” motif. The entire symphony is essentially the same core idea repeated and developed relentlessly! The same four notes (da-da-da-DAH!) moving between instruments, changing keys, etc. Beethoven took something basic — a four note motif — and extracted an enormous set of variations. Its genius is in illustrating how much can be explored and expressed within constraints (rather than piling on “more and more” novel stuff). Back to Jason’s point: the simplest building blocks in any form — music, code, paint, cooking — implemented with restraint can be combined in an almost infinite set of pleasing ways. As Devine noted (and I constantly link back to): we haven’t even begun to scratch the surface of what we can do with less. Email · Mastodon · Bluesky

Conrad Irwin has an article on the Zed blog “Why LLMs Can't Really Build Software”. He says it boils down to: the distinguishing factor of effective engineers is their ability to build and maintain clear mental models We do this by: Building a mental model of what you want to do Building a mental model of what the code does Reducing the difference between the two It’s kind of an interesting observation about how we (as humans) problem solve vs. how we use LLMs to problem solve: With LLMs, you stuff more and more information into context until it (hopefully) has enough to generate a solution. With your brain, you tweak, revise, or simplify your mental model more and more until the solution presents itself. One adds information — complexity you might even say — to solve a problem. The other eliminates it. You know what that sort of makes me think of? NPM driven development. Solving problems with LLMs is like solving front-end problems with NPM: the “solution” comes through installing more and more things — adding more and more context, i.e. more and more packages. LLM: Problem? Add more context. NPM: Problem? There’s a package for that. Contrast that with a solution that comes through simplification. You don’t add more context. You simplify your mental model so you need less to solve a problem — if you solve it at all, perhaps you eliminate the problem entirely! Rather than install another package to fix what ails you, you simplify your mental model which often eliminates the problem you had in the first place; thus eliminating the need to solve any problem at all, or to add any additional context or complexity (or dependency). As I’m typing this, I’m thinking of that image of the evolution of the Raptor engine, where it evolved in simplicity: This stands in contrast to my working with LLMs, which often wants more and more context from me to get to a generative solution: I know, I know. There’s probably a false equivalence here. This entire post started as a note and I just kept going. This post itself needs further thought and simplification. But that’ll have to come in a subsequent post, otherwise this never gets published lol. Email · Mastodon · Bluesky

Jan Miksovsky lays out his idea for website creation as content transformation. He starts by talking about tools that hide what’s happening “under the hood”: A framework’s marketing usually pretends it is unnecessary for you to understand how its core transformation works — but without that knowledge, you can’t achieve the beautiful range of results you see in the framework’s sample site gallery. This is a great callout. Tools will say, “You don’t have to worry about the details.” But the reality is, you end up worrying about the details — at least to some degree. Why? Because what you want to build is full of personalization. That’s how you differentiate yourself, which means you’re going to need a tool that’s expressive enough to help you. So the question becomes: how hard is it to understand the details that are being intentionally hidden away? A lot of the time those details are not exposed directly. Instead they’re exposed through configuration. But configuration doesn’t really help you learn how something works. I mean, how many of you have learned how typescript works under the hood by using tsconfig.json? As Jan says: Configuration can lead to as many problems as it solves Nailed it. He continues: Configuring software is itself a form of programming, in fact a rather difficult and often baroque form. It can take more data files or code to configure a framework’s transformation than to write a program that directly implements that transformation itself. I’m not a Devops person, but that sounds like Devops in a nutshell right there. (It also perfectly encapsulates my feelings on trying to setup configuration in GitHub Actions.) Jan moves beyond site creation to also discuss site hosting. He gives good reasons for keeping your website’s architecture simple and decoupled from your hosting provider (something I’ve been a long time proponent of): These site hosting platforms typically charge an ongoing subscription fee. (Some offer a free tier that may meet your needs.) The monthly fee may not be large, but it’s forever. Ten years from now you’ll probably still want your content to be publicly available, but will you still be happy paying that monthly fee? If you stop paying, your site disappears. In subscription pricing, any price (however small) is recurring. Stated differently: pricing is forever. Anyhow, it’s a good read from Jan and lays out his vision for why he’s building Web Origami: a tool for that encourages you to understand (and customize) how you transform content to a website. He just launched version 0.4.0 which has some exciting stuff I’m excited to try out further (I’ll have to write about all that later). Email · Mastodon · Bluesky

I’ve been reading listening to Poor Charlie’s Almanack which is a compilation of talks by Charlie Munger, legendary vice-chairman at Berkshire Hathaway. One thing Charlie talks about is what he calls “sit on your ass investing” which is the opposite of day trading. Rather than being in the market every day (chasing trends, reacting to fluctuations, and trying to time transactions) Charlie advocates spending most of your time “sitting on your ass”. That doesn’t mean you’re doing nothing. It means that instead of constantly trading you’re spending your time in research and preparation for trading. Eventually, a top-tier opportunity will come along and your preparation will make you capable of recognizing it and betting big. That’s when you trade. After that, you’re back to “sitting on your ass”. Trust your research. Trust your choices. Don’t tinker. Don’t micromanage. Don’t panic. Just let the compounding effects of a good choice work in your favor. Day Trading, Day Developing As a day trader your job is to trade daily (it’s right there in the job title). If you’re not trading every day — following trends, reacting to fluctuations, timing trades — then what are you even doing? Not your job, apparently. I think it’s easy to view “development” this. You’re a developer. Your job is to develop programs — to write code. If you’re not doing that every single day, then what are you even doing? From this perspective, it becomes easy to think that writing endless code for ever-changing software paradigms is just one develops websites. But it doesn’t have to be that way. Granted, there’s cold-blooded and warm-blooded software. Sometimes you can’t avoid that. But I also think there’s a valuable lesson in Charlie’s insight. You don’t have to chase “the market” of every new framework or API, writing endless glue code for features that already exist or that will soon exist in browsers. Instead, you can make a few select, large bets on the web platform and then “sit on your ass” until the payoff comes later! An Example: Polyfills I think polyfills are a great example of an approach to “sit on your ass” web development. Your job as a developer is to know enough to make a bet on a particular polyfill that aligns with the future of the web platform. Once implemented, all you have to do is sit on your ass while other really smart people who are building browsers do their part to ship the polyfilled feature in the platform. Once shipped, you “sell” your investment by stripping out the polyfill and reap the reward of having your application get lighter and faster with zero additional effort. A big part of the payoff is in the waiting — in the “sitting on your ass”. You make a smart bet, then you sit patiently while others run around endlessly writing and rewriting more code (meanwhile the only thing left for you will be to delete code). Charlie’s business partner Warren Buffett once said that it’s “better to buy a wonderful company at a fair price, than a fair company at a wonderful price”. Similarly, I’d say it’s better to build on a polyfill aligned with the future of the platform than to build on a framework re-inventing a feature of the platform. Get Out Of Your Own Way Want to do “Day Trading Development”? Jump tools and frameworks constantly — “The next one will solve all our problems!” Build complex, custom solutions that duplicate work the web platform is already moving towards solving. Commit code that churns with time, rather than compounds with it. Want to do “Sit on Your Ass Development”? Do the minimum necessary to bridge the gap until browsers catch up. Build on forward-facing standards, then sit back and leverage the compounding effects of browser makers and standards bodies that iteratively improve year over year (none of whom you have to pay). As Alex Russel recommends, spend as little time as possible in your own code and instead focus on glueing together “the big C++/Rust subsystems” of the browser. In short: spend less time glueing together tools and frameworks on top of the browser, and more time bridging tools and APIs inside of the browser. Then get out of your own way and go sit on your ass. You might find yourself more productive than ever! Email · Mastodon · Bluesky