Developers are some of the most demanding customers to please with developer tools, and are one of the hardest business to make a profit in.
When we feel something is a ripoff... we'll build ourselves/migrate/adopt a new tool.
Often out of spite!
Can't really point to another business where customers will sometimes leave a vendor even if it costs them a *lot more* to migrate off, or build a tool.
Unsaid is how it's professionally satisfying to prove that we can build a complex tool, plus it's often rewarded by leadership as well!
"Our equity platform doubled pricing? No clue what they do, why do you ask me"
"Our feature flagging vendor wants to push us into a higher tier to keep SSO and would cost us an additional $3,000 per year (10% increase)?
I'll build a new FF system in a week, saving us $10K**
** not counting development, migration, maintenance and opportunity cost. But seriously how hard can it be to build feature flags: I'll show them!
Huge respect for anyone being able to build and run a successful and profitable dev tools startup or company
Cannot think of many more challenging things. And must be SO satisfying if you manage! This is the founder of @raygunio
The more I use GenAI coding tools, the more I am convinced keeping to "traditional" software engineering practices is what works most productive here. As in 10x more productive. E.g.
- Small changes
- Test that the change works before moving on
- (unit) tests wherever you can
Amusing how error-prone all of these models are
I catch how often it generates buggy code thanks to testing and adding unit tests (I have it usually generate tests and then I tweak for my test cases)
Don't know how people are productive who let it run loose tbh
All those non-devs parroting how GenAI is the end of software development don't do actual development. And esp not wit these tools.
I am pretty confident Meta will have no "AI engineer that will start contributing increasing amounts of code" beyond being a companion like today
One interesting I’m seeing with GenAI coding tools:
The MASSIVELY help technical founders at small and mid-sized startups prototype, challenge dev team, and ship products faster.
A recent example I’ve seen (cont’d):
Founder: “here’s a product idea we should do.”
Dev team: “Ok. We’ll build a prototype. It will be ~2 weeks.” 1 month later there’s a prototype. Another 2 months to ship to customers.
Now: founder builds prototype in ~4 hours, shows to dev team. Team builds a more prod ready one in a week and ships to customers!
I have only seen this work with *technical* founders. Ones who used to live and breathe code and built the first version of product themselves. But as team grew to 10-50+ ppl this was no longer an option.
GenAI is revitalising them - and the product iteration shows it!!
Meta created React Native. It’s used (with components at least) in their flagship apps: Facebook (iOS, Android), Instagram (Meta Quest), Messenger (desktop).
Google created Flutter. And yet none of their flagship apps use it (Gmail, YouTube, Maps, Calendar).
The only flagship Meta app not using React Native is WhatsApp.
Google does build a lot of smaller apps with Flutter.
Just odd that Flutter can be used as modules (for a few screens) but Google, for some reason, doesn’t do with major apps.
Food for thought.
Flutter powers more apps than React Native: but more iOS apps are RN than Flutter.
Large-scale case studies published are mostly RN. Flutter case studies are usually smaller apps.
More details on each technology, and other Flutter and RN alternatives: