European companies are fined all the time as well, you just don't see the news about it, there definitely no ill-intent vs american companies as you are trying to imply
It's not about being beautiful or ugly, it's about being simple.
Python is simple to read / write and easier to reason about, especially for people that need a programming language to solve a problem but are not software engineers.
The reason it won, especially in data analysis, is because most data analyst are/were not software engineer and Python feels more natural to people.
The indentation is not a big problem when a decent text editor is used
> As long as revenue rises faster than training costs
And this is definitely not happening. They are covering training costs with investors money, and they can't really stop it without their competitors catching up
Youtube didn't have a significant competitor, once the quality started declining and the ads started creeping up, there were no alternatives to switch to (as a user) because the content creators were in on the profit.
The same isn't true about ChatGPT.
Anthropic and Google provides a similar product, and switching to a better/cheaper platform is fairly easy as it only depends on you and not on others (content creators or friends) doing the same.
I don't think it is what web developers want, it is what customers expect.
Of course there are plenty of situation where the page is totally bloated and could be much leaner, but the overall trend to build web applications instead of web pages is dictated by user expectations and, as a consequence, requirements.
> Why would I use Grammarly/Superhuman for writing with LLM assistance, when I have an out-of-box alternative that, at worst, is equal?
I think the answer is basically that they have brand recognition and they're trying to ride it. Right now, they have two bad choices: become irrelevant more quickly by having a product that's inferior to built-in LLM tools, or become irrelevant more slowly by having a tool that's comparable (and also works anywhere on the internet, not just on specific websites).
It's not about being closed to other languages, it's about being economically pragmatic in many, many cases.
As shown in the article, you can build ONCE an app that loads in milliseconds by just providing an url to any potential customer. It works on mobile and on desktop, on any operating system.
The native alternative requires:
- Multiple development for any platform you target (to be widely used you need *at least* ios, android, macOS and windows.)
- Customers are required to download and install something before using your platform, creating additional friction.
And all of this to obtain at most 20-30ms better loading times?
There are plenty of cases where native makes sense and is necessary, but most apps have very little to gain at the cost of a massive increase in development resources.
When feasible, I'd add repl environments. The ability to quickly modify and test the example can make up for a lot of the shortcomings documentation might have.
I'm honestly surprised there are people who think that only examples are fine. And I'm equally surprised there are people who think only reference docs are fine. It's so infuriating coming across a project that only has one kind and not the other.
reply