I know they have said that. But it feels a bit strange to me to continue to develop in C++ then, if they eventually will have to rewrite everything in Swift. Wouldn't it be better to switch language sooner rather than later in that case?
Or maybe it doesn't have to take so much time to do a rewrite if an AI does it. But then I also wonder why not do it now, rather than wait.
mise has more features - it is a super set of asdf. For example it can set your env vars when you cd into a directory (like direnv). It also has tasks (which I haven't used) - they appear to be similar to what a Makefile does. So you can potentially replace three tools (asdf, direnv, make) with one.
Mise started out using the same plugins as asdf, mostly focused on adding performance and usability improvements. Over time it added more features and security.
Most tools are now directly fetched from github releases without the need for random shell scripts (which is what asdf plugins are).
It also grew to be a task runner and environment manager. At first you might think this is scope creep but they're both opt in and very elegant additions. I don't want to ramble but let's just say they've solved real problems I've had.
I'm a fan of it, and I can't think of a reason why I would use asdf over mise. Its real competition is nix (+devbox/devenv/flox), devcontainers, and pixi.
I wonder when/how to test and review the code though? I mean, how do you know Claude Code hasn't entered a completely different path than you had imagined?
I started to use JJ during the summer, and now I'm hooked. It feels much easier to do things such as reorder, squash and split commits, as well as change commit message.
And if you messed up anything, you can always undo it by using your `git reflog`. No matter what you did, you can always go back a previous state! Each state is stored as new commit.
dbbb733 (HEAD -> master) HEAD@{18}: rebase (finish): returning to refs/heads/master
dbbb733 (HEAD -> master) HEAD@{19}: rebase (pick): Commit #10.
4bf7bcd HEAD@{20}: rebase (squash): Commit #6.Commit #8.
cdc47c1 HEAD@{21}: rebase (pick): Commit #6.
2ca48d8 HEAD@{22}: rebase (squash): Commit #5.Commit #7.
6a6fccc HEAD@{23}: commit (amend): Commit #5.
86ca5f8 HEAD@{24}: rebase (edit): Commit #5.
1259a52 HEAD@{25}: rebase (reword): Second "Hi" commit.
b33f89c HEAD@{26}: rebase (reword): Second commit.
9cefee3 HEAD@{27}: rebase (pick): Commit #4.
2448f03 HEAD@{28}: rebase (pick): Fourth commit.
5340360 HEAD@{29}: rebase: fast-forward
d1406ed HEAD@{30}: rebase (start): checkout d1406ed8145dc84695eb622bc6b3fc078e8098df
50941da HEAD@{31}: commit: Commit #10.
c23819d HEAD@{32}: commit: Commit #9.
7567b18 HEAD@{33}: commit: Commit #8.
7e99e85 HEAD@{34}: commit: Commit #7.
af1f2fe HEAD@{35}: commit: Commit #6.
6bb5d98 HEAD@{36}: commit: Commit #5.
2a648f2 HEAD@{37}: commit: Commit #4.
a2b6a59 HEAD@{38}: commit: Fourth commit.
12ccd8a HEAD@{39}: commit: Second commit.
5340360 HEAD@{40}: commit (initial): First commit.
Feel like git has a reputation for being hard even for things they're not that much.
I am quite comfortable with `git rebase -i` and I still prefer jj.
Most importantly, I get in this situation less often in the first place. Because reodering and squashing commits can be done with an easy command[1], I tend to squash or rebase as I think of it instead of batching it up to do all at once.
Many times, I don't need to manually target which commit to squash into at all, because I can be editing at the tip of the branch, then use `jj absorb` to automatically squash all my changes down into the commits where they belong.[2]
And `jj undo` is just easier to use than the reflog[3]. While reading the reflog you posted, I have to mentally replay each commit step by step. But really, if I messed something up, it's most likely I want to just go back to `HEAD@{31}`. `jj rebase` is atomic, so the whole thing is undone with one invocation of `jj undo`.
I have recently tried to navigate with OsmAnd a few times where I live. Once I ended up in the wrong location, and a few times I have had to look up the business in Google Maps to find their address.
I would love to use OsmAnd more. StreetComplete sounds great and looks like a nice way to be able to contribute fixes to OSM. Thanks for the recommendation!
It is smooth and kind of "I'm doing my part!" but with low friction.
> a few times I have had to look up the business in Google Maps to find their address
Exactly my point - Gmaps taught us to expect *businesses" on maps. Not addresses. Pins and stars, instead of streets and numbers. Arrival time and traffic, instead of distance, elevation and road type (size).
I use gmaps still, mostly for businesses, but to actually know where I am I have better options. Gmaps hides most of typical map features - you see less of trees, water, buildings, height elevation. On Comaps/Osmand you suddenly can correlate map with things you see (without street view! :P).
Are we gonna accept being forever locked in to Microsoft because of custom Excel workbook formulas? Forever paying Microsoft a license fee, because we don't want to covert said formulas or invest in open source software to make it reach parity with Excel.
The problem with this is that the decisionmakers fucked up 10-20 years ago, and now when those decisions are being righted, some poor public servant is paying the price.
And 10-20 years ago it would have also been a public servant paying the price. You are just salty it's now you. At least be happy your work is impacted for a noble cause.
I am salty, but not because I'm impacted by this. :)
The reason I'm salty is that most linux desktop envs are unusable in their own right. I very much feel the pain of being forced to use some centrally-dictated craptastic linux GUI. I've been on Linux for 2+ decades and I hate nearly all the desktop envs. I totally feel for those blokes whose Windows UI is now being ripped from their hands. Where they'll land doesn't only suck for them (having a Windows background), it might very well suck for anyone, even those with a long Linux background.
In many organizations, that license costs less than converting all the Excel workbooks - a process that disrupts work, as only the Excel spreadsheet's creator and user can reliably spec and test the new spreadsheet. And they need to convert with accuracy - worse than crashes is undetected bad output.
Being stuck in legacy systems sucks, and technical people like to deny the reality of it - but it's a business reality.
True, regardless of the cost, it feels like money spent on open source software is more ethical and a better way to spend tax money. Why pay $15 million to Microsoft that will only benefit their shareholders, when spending the same amount of money on open source software would benefit everybody (the citizens as well).
This resonates with me as well. This money will increase attention and expectedly contributions to OSS, which will also be of benefit to other entities implementing the same model later on. That’s the way to go towards sovereignty in software.
Or maybe it doesn't have to take so much time to do a rewrite if an AI does it. But then I also wonder why not do it now, rather than wait.