Regarding the Windsurf sale (part of the team acquihired by Google, prob a great exit, but not all the team):

I feel we’re forgetting well-funded startups today are NOT scrappy startups in the past where employees work for pennies, paid well under market.

Its a different game What is true, and always has been true: founders and decision makers always have the biggest potential upside - for anything! Including negotiating and acquisition.

This is why so many accomplished employees eventually become founders - because its hoe you have more control of your destiny

There was this engineer on my team a while back who was: a good dev, but not the best dev. Got everything done. But had zero ego, a very nice personality, and got along with *everyone* on the team very well.

When he joined, the team became... better. Nicer. More balanced. I just got a reference check about this dev, asking the usual questions ("what is an example where they delivered over and beyond," "how did they execute", "what are growth areas" etc)

He did fine on all of them, but I still think how much better he made my team. With stuff that's hard/impossible to measure!

So predictable that we’ll see an explosion of digital products selling “ideas for million dollar businesses” that you can “just vibe code quickly”.

Basically: “buy my digital product for $500, spend $1,500 on Lovable / Claude Code and become a millionaire.”

Another hype train Ofc these products promoted by influencers will work just as well as crypto sh*tcoins launched by influencers in 2023.

We’ll see doctored evidence (“someone who built one of ideas idea is at $5K MRR after 2 weeks”) and nontechnical people will spend thousands for $0 in return

I generally like Anthropic: but the more they paint a dystopian future where AI “manages” people (“AI middle-managers”) the more I am starting to think they are losing their marbles.

LLMs is a tool humans should use. The tail should not wag the dog; Anthropic should know better

https://twitter.com/anthropicai/status/1938630310985601131

And frankly I’m getting tired of Anthropic being loud about how their AI will lead to mass unemployment, and while claiming to be a responsible lab to develop AI.

If your master plan is to wipe out the labor market for profit: you’re not responsible.

You cannot have both.

https://twitter.com/anthropicai/status/1938630312734474248

Something I hear very little talk about:

How AI coding tools are so much LESS useful when used on existing, large codebases at work (with custom frameworks, conventions, coding style etc)

... compared to doing greenfield work or side projects

So common for me to hear: "yeah I love it on my side projects, but at work it's 'meh'" I'm getting details talking with devs at the likes of eg Google, Meta, Microsoft: the companies building some of the best AI coding tools out there!

And yet, for their existing codebases, the usefulness is marginal. Mostly for autocomplete (that has a higher miss rate than for greenfield)

This blog is SO good at pointing out what should have been obvious about AI for coding (Copilot and others)

These tools are good for re-creating whatever they’ve been trained on.

They are not what will create the next, better generation of frameworks, libraries, technologies. Full blog - you should *absolutely* read it

I also find these AI tools helpful when it’s doing the routine task I’ve done many times and can do it with eyes closed

But… it’s not helpful when I want to build something GREAT that is elegant, and better than beforedeplet.ing/the-copilot-de…

I am hearing SO many stories about people realizing coding with AI tools (aka “vibe coding”) is a game changer after “reviving” an old side project or idea on the side and making so much progress

But… while I often hear the excitement on starting: not hearing “finished” often! Almost like these tools were amazing at making rapid progress at first… but it still takes a ton of effort to finish things and feels like most people go back to leaving side projects unfinished (even if in a more advanced state?)

Question from an ex-Uber engineer:

"I got this reachout from recruiting Uber. I responded that I'm happy to discuss why I left (so Uber can learn from it) but not planning to return.

I got ghosted. Why? They asked, after all!"

Here is exactly why (continued): It's b/c you mis-read the email (which is so easy to do!)

It sounds like a "we'd love feedback and improve", right?

WRONG

This is a recruitment email, using Uber alumni as a high conversion channel.

It's from a sourcer: who only has one goal: get ppl in the hiring pipeline!

Can we just mention what practically everyone using Cursor and Windsurf uses/pays for as version control again

And who owns that service

https://twitter.com/rhyssullivan/status/1919609657523310785

In case you missed it: it was Microsoft who voluntarily cannibalized their very very profitable Visual Studio business and released VS Code for free. And made it trivial to fork. VS Code + forks probably account for 80%+ of the global dev market in usage

Why did they do it?

I’m tired of hearing the “AI is killing tech jobs” narrative. Here is data on “top” tech companies and startups hiring.

The last 2 years (since GenAI went mainstream and AI coding tools evolved greatly) we’re seeing more hiring from them. Below the pandemic peak ofc Data source: @Pragmatic_Eng

newsletter.pragmaticengineer.com/p/the-reality-…

And before you show me the tech jobs going down graph that goes viral every week: know that most sectors see the “decline in jobs” from the pandemic peak: blog.pragmaticengineer.com/software-engin…

Here’s one reason Apple fought tooth and nail to disallow web payments for apps:

Because Apple’s IAP is bad in many ways, and *so many* apps will move to web-based payments now not mainly because of the 30% Apple fee, but because of how bad IAP is.

Let me give you examples: 1. Refunds

With Apple IAP it’s just not possible to do!! No, it really is not for the merchant. They cannot do a full or partial refund. Talk about poor customer support!

2. Group subscriptions. Nonexistent with IAP.

3. Paying using a non-credit card option. IAP does not allow

Every now and then there's this prediction of when we will see the first one billion dollar company ran by one person...

... and I think back to how in 2016 there was this one product inside Uber that had crossed a $1B annual run rate that had a total of one dev allocated to it. And half a data scientist (part-time).

It was cash.

Funny how headcount games can work inside fast-growing companies, especially when the product is a stated goal of what a founder does NOT want to support (but turns out to be essential!)

From an eng manager at a full remote company:

"We just fired an engineer after ~15 days on the job who lacked basics skills on the job but aced the interview - clearly, using cheat tools.

He admitted to how he did it: he used iAsk, ChatGPT and Interview Coder throughout" (I personally talked with this person and know them well)

This company hired full remote without issue for years: this is the first proper shocker they have.

They are changing their process, of course. In-person interviews, in-part likely to be unavoidable.

I am coming around to why MCP is so impressive.

For one of my side projects, I used to have to log onto my database admin (PgAdmin) to query stuff.

I connected an MCP server to Postgres and can "talk" with my database (and data!)

An uplevel in my productivity + ease of work. Let me give an example of how cool this is:

I have a service that sends our promo codes for Perplexity and Kagi that paid newsletter members can claim:

I can now "talk" with the data from my IDE to get all kinds of details!

Was impossible until now newsletter.pragmaticengineer.com/p/free-kagi-an…

I'm starting to understand why there are company eng blogs not worth reading.

When doing a deepdive on an interesting company in @Pragmatic_Eng, we do research, talk with engineers, then share the draft back for any minor corrections. Usually it's a "LGTM." But sometimes: Sometimes the Comms or Brand team gets actively involved, and mistakenly assume they are the editors, and attempt to rewrite the whole thing on how they would usually publish it on eg their blog.

Every time, it's a disaster to see, but also amusing. Because a good article becomes SO bad. Interesting details removed, branding elements added etc.

(We never allow edits - and if they insist we simply publish nothing, throwing out our research. This has not yet happened, but it might be the first time it will)

One thing that really bugs me about VCs and others projects claiming how AI will mean many devs redundant because smaller teams can do more with less: is ignoring the last.

Some of the most impactful / successful software was built by tiny teams in the 80s, 90s, 2000s. Like: Microsoft’s first product in 1975 years ago: 2 devs

Quake in 1996: 9 devs

Google’s first search engine in 1998: 4 devs

We could go on.

Small teams with outstanding people doing great things happened before GenAI and will happen after as well (and without as well!)

A good reminder why you can pick up GenAI - and you probably should. Real story:

Small company, 5 devs. Last time they hired was 12 years ago. AI comes out: company wants to add AI feature. But they don't have the expertise. So hire an AI agency.

Agency spend 3 months planning: After 3 months, the present a very complex architecture to build: several services multiple databases, SageMaker models etc, using a language a company is not using (Python - this is a Java shop)

It will take 6-9 months to build

Operational costs will be higher fort this one feature than all of the SaaS operational costs for the company!

Klarna was the company that went all-on replacing customer support with an AI bot and went on to brag about the cost savings.

Now they are reversing course.

Easy to see more companies blindly replacing quality customer support with a worse AI implementation will follow... Back when Twitter was full of influencers declaring the end of customer support thanks to Klarna I did something few people did:

Signed up for Klarna, bought an item, and used the bot.

I was NOT impressed. At all.

Called that this was... very basic. blog.pragmaticengineer.com/klarnas-ai-cha…

"Leetcode-style / DSA / algorithmical interviews are useless and don't measure what's really expected on the job. They are also inefficient, and companies using these are hiring for the wrong people."

Heard this SO many times.

The responses almost always miss the point.

I'll do a longer post one day, but a few thoughts:

1. YOU are not Big Tech. You probably don't have 1,000+ qualified applicants show up for an entry-level job posting and 100+ for a senior posting - in just a day or two, without advertising it

2. When a company gets large enough combined with #1, the game becomes not reducing false negatives but reducing false positives to zero

3. "LeetCode-style interviews are BS and don't measure what you do on the job." Yes. This is part of the reason. Guess what else is BS at Big Tech? A lot of stuff? Do you think people who are unwilling to put up with BS (that has historic context and can be internalized) would last at these companies? No: they would quit shortly or be pushed out as they refuse to do what everyone else does. These interviews conveniently self-select for people who can and do put up with BS

4. Career ladders. There is a notion that a Principal engineer should be as good or better than a new grad in every area - including algo coding. Like it or not, it's how it is

5. Technical managers. Many of these companies expect managers to pass the same bar. Like it or not, again: the reality is at these places many (probably all) line managers can code, and can do it very well.

6. Scalability of process. Have you ever had the challenge of onboarding 120 new interviewers in a month? Every quarter? These companies have this problem.

7. If it ain't broken: don't fix it.

Look at the business results of Big Tech. If the interview process would be broken, it would show up in eg shipping slower and being outcompeted by competition etc. In reality: Big Tech is more nimble than ever. E.g. Threads, Copilot, Gemini etc. Their interview process works *for them*

8. You are probably not Big Tech and don't have to solve for this very distinct set of problems. Remind me how Big Tech hiring is broken when they built a new social media network in 6 months from idea to launch. This was 2x faster than e.g. Bluesky (a nimble and amazing startup btw)

Threads story: newsletter.pragmaticengineer.com/p/building-the…

Bluesky story: newsletter.pragmaticengineer.com/p/bluesky

Via @Pragmatic_Eng

I rarely do predictions but this is an easy enough one to make:

Big Tech will bring back onsite interviews for the final round of interviews, flying in candidates.

When you pay top of market, AND do hybrid work, in the age of invisible AI helpers, remote interviews are a risk

https://twitter.com/tom_doerr/status/1890842725655658641

A company expecting staff to work in-office 2-3 days per week will increasingly prefer in-person (final round) interviews.

If they pay top of market: this itself will be enough for most candidates to do it. The payoff is high enough, after all.

In-person interviews also negate all "cheating" that can be done with AI. It also means existing interview formats (eg algo interview, sytems design etc) don't need to be changed to remain as effective as before!

Don’t fall for speculation like this.

Software developer job postings are back to where they were in ~2019, following the COVID boom (and zero interest rates!).

You know what else has the same pattern? Banking jobs. Marketing jobs. Heck, HR jobs:

https://twitter.com/gregisenberg/status/1889847881424646403

Banking and finance jobs:

The story is not how software developer jobs are disappearing because of eg AI.

The story is how there was an economic boom 2021-2022, massive hiring, and now a correction.

A lot to do with zero interest rates! More: newsletter.pragmaticengineer.com/p/zirp