This is a bit misleading as the decline reported is year-on-year and of course sales haven't fully recovered yet.
Quarter-on-quarter or month-by-month would have been much more interesting, could have shown a change in trend. Especially after Musk's departure from the administration.
I'm out of the loop here. Recovered from what? A few months ago in similar threads the going theory was that people were waiting for the new Y, and that's why there was a slump. The new Y is out and available, no? Are they just not up to full rate production?
At this point it's much more interesting how well the Robotaxi is doing. It's still not driving like Waymo (I didn't like how it is desregarding the rules), but in a few years if it is able to scale up, it will scale much much faster and cheaper.
The shell treats the first line as a comment. It executes the second line, which eventually exec's the binary so the rest of the file do not matter to the shell.
And the compiler treats the first line as a preprocessor directive, so it ignores the second line.
I initially misread/mistook the first line for a shebang.
There was another 1981 paper that went into this by Boehm "Software Engineering Economics", but I can't find the details right now.
This NASA publication [1] cites a number of studies and the cost increase factors they estimate for various stages of development, including the Boehm study.
And often it's not an unhelpful upstream, just an upstream that sees little use for man pages in their releases, and doesn't want to spend time maintaining documentation in parallel to what their README.md or --help provides (with which the man page must be kept in sync).
Almost same weight as 8 and 8a - FWIW I have 8, and the size and weight are very comfy, as a previous 3a owner (I "downgraded" from Pixel 6 which was too big and too heavy to fit in one hand and in the pocket, though I actually gotten used to it at home as a "tablet"). Using Spigen Liquid Air case.
Spyder is the reason I could become Computer Scientist.
When transitioning from MechE -> CS, every programming interface felt unintuitive and daunting to set up. Spyder made it so simple to get started. It turned python into a Matlab-esque numeric computing interface, got out of your way and let you built whatever you wanted. It reduced the 'time to magic' like no other tool I'd tried. (Can I coin the term : 'time to magic'?)
If I had to setup PyCharm on day 1, I'd never have gone past the my first barrier. Before jupyter & colab, there was Spyder. It remained my trusty IDE for a full year until Jupyter notebooks & VsCode came around.
Even though the term "time to magic" has already been coined, it think it's the key, pivotal, lynchpin thing. Making the time to magic short is what makes or breaks a product's adoption. Products with a very short time to magic win, despite whatever other technical flaws they may have: PHP, Twitter, and Docker are all great examples.
Depends on your ROI. If the tool saves you much more, $20/mo could be very reasonable. This IDE is rather narrowly focused on easily doing numerical code and visualizations. If you were doing it every day and were cringing every time at the thought of using your current setup, the product would be for you.
https://xkcd.com/1205/ provides an idea of the cost of the time spent by improving a tool, or, equivalently, saved by paying for it. If you're paid even $50 an hour, a $20 / mo tool that saves you 30 minutes a month, cumulative, is already worth paying for. And this thing can save hours and hours a month for a particular kind of work.
Why is 20$/month absurd for something that boosts productivity? What does matlab coat nowadays? Sounds like he'd like to be able to improve it further and clients invest in that.
Absurd is people paying 80$+/month for yt tv so they can watch ads.. My opinions.
I don't want to pay $20/month for something that is probably going to be mostly unchanged after I purchase. That's like paying rent for tooling. I want to own my tools not rent them.
Agreed. The visualizations are very nice. I'd consider purchasing a copy for $150-$200 if it would give me one year of free updates, but I simply don't do subscription models without any kind of fallback license anymore.
I really dislike the idea of justifying eternal subscription cost models because of "ROI".
Every tool has an ROI, but you don't see photographers paying a monthly fee to use their camera, you don't see electricians paying a monthly fee to use their oscilloscope, you don't see carpenters paying a monthly fee to use their table saw, etc.
And this isn't Kickstarter - I'm not interested in investing in features/upgrades that the application might get at some point in the future, I buy software based on the feature set that it currently has.
I'm with you. I think, it will have to not just boost productivity, but it has to be an improvement over the cheaper, and very good PyCharm. Given the talking points on the home page and here, the visualizations will have to be worth it for a given use case to forego the introspection and refactoring capabilities of PyCharm.
Depends. MatLab's pricing structure is kind of all over the place.
That being said, I purchased a copy for personal use almost 6 years ago for around ~200 USD and guess what? I just installed it on a fresh PC a few weeks ago, and it works perfectly. No subscription necessary.
Productivity is a very vague concept, which can't be measured easily in most cases. So it's also hard to justify a steep price. And it's not like there is no competition here. Visualizations aside, this IDE seems very generic and basic in what it offers. So chances are good that you would still use a better tool, to not lose productivity in other areas.
And most important, if you stop paying, you will lose the gain from it. If dev screws up at some point, you might lose the gain from it. It's not really clear how updates are working. Are you forced to always use the newest version? Or can you stay at a specific version for all time? This uncertain factors and other, demand that the gain from a subscription is so immense, that you are willing to take the risk. And this tool here is not there yet, maybe never will; making it hard to justify a sub.
> Absurd is people paying 80$+/month for yt tv so they can watch ads..
Youtube is an external service. You are paying for their running costs, which you create. This IDE is local, and there is no guarantee which updates will come and which benefits they will have for you. So there is no "running cost" you create for them.
Reasonable question but I think people are just burnt out by the Silicon Valley pricing model that has proliferated everywhere.
* Most consumers now swallow a live service model and associated costs that they don’t want
* Most consumers now swallow the costs of west coast tech culture: cost of living, esoteric architectural choices, fad driven development, and hobby driven development
* Most owners of software businesses expect to get rich in a relatively short time frame
* Software is absurdly high margin if built effectively and distributed at (effectively) zero cost. Where do consumers ever see these savings when cost outpaces inflation?
* Record profits and layoffs being recorded by the broader industry
And specifically to the point of productivity tools inherently justifying nearly any price, this argument is fundamentally flawed because productivity is only measurable if it can be strictly defined and good luck with that one. Salespeople have made billions hawking that fallacy and people eat it up because American work culture fetishizes productivity.
This isn’t a critique of OP I really went down a rabbit hole exploring and appreciating this project and hope it succeeds.
The underlying business model of software is dystopian when compared to what it could be if everyone didn’t bind happiness to being cartoonishly wealthy in Menlo Park.
This in particular looks like a solo project that probably took around a year.
Say OP sells 1000 subscriptions. That's 20 thousand dollars a month. They sell 10k subs, 200k a month.
Or the project fails, and as a closed source tool I can't fork and fix issues. The only options are it becoming a multi million dollar company or abandonware.
I'd be open to it if it was 100$ with one year of free updates. But even then, I think Visual Studio( which is free for hobbyist) is the only closed source IDE I use. Everything else is open source and free.
Maybe I've been traumatized by Unity 3D, but I don't want to use a bunch of closed source tools. What if this becomes my primary dev tool, and OP decides to update the pricing.
If you're justification for a $20 subscription is that oh you're probably making six figures and this is making your job easier, then what's to stop you from pricing it at $50 a month. Why not a hundred .
Open AI has already started this bizarre slide into higher pricing tiers, I can use Deepseek or LLma3 for free, but if I'm using the most up-to-date chat GPT, I'll run into a rate limit and be told it's time to upgrade to a $200 a month service?!
I wonder if this concern could be partly alleviated through a price lock-in strategy. There could be a contract that says because the subscriber has paid for N months, that subscriber is eligible to keep paying the same price for 5-10 years, regardless of the price for other subscribers. This could incentivize people to start their subscription early.
That wouldn't stop the developer from abandoning the project though. I don't like using closed source tools when I can avoid it. Visual studio is a big exception because Microsoft will never abandon it in a million years, it's literally their flagship IDE.
The same argument can be made for the jet brains IDEs. But a closed source tool made by a solo developer just seems too risky for me, even if the OP was giving it away I'd be a little bit reluctant to use it.
Makes sense. Still, I've been burned a bit when Microsoft surprisingly abandoned a developer tool I purchased. Flagship or not, a lot can change in a few years.
From what I can tell they went from having a dozen small dev tools into consolidating everything in VS Studio.
This has also been somewhat mitigated by VS Code, not everyone needs a giant 30GB ide to edit text. I think Microsoft is one of the better companies when it comes to developers. You don't even need Windows to compile Windows software... Unlike Apple that locks everything behind over priced hardware.
Came looking for this comment. I was a heavy Matlab user, having learned it during University. I started getting frustrated with it though, and wanted something else that would let me go from simulation or experimental data to visualisations as fast as possible. Spyder was the answer.
Yes, this. For example, `Ctrl+R makedo` would go back in history to the first command that matches this, to use the ` ./scripts/makedocs.sh` example from the article.
And Ctrl+s goes forward in history, but if you don’t have flow control disabled you might think your terminal became frozen in time. Ctrl+q will resume the flow in that case.
Also got to watch out for Ctrl+d on qwerty kb layouts where s and d keys live side by side.
In 1998, ASML formed a European industrial R&D consortium dubbed ‘EUCLIDES’ (Extreme UV Concept Lithography Development System) with ZEISS and Oxford Instruments. Then EUCLIDES joined forces with the American EUV LLC in 1999...
"The CRADA consisted of a consortium of private companies and the Labs, manifested as an entity called the Extreme Ultraviolet Limited Liability Company (EUV LLC)."
You keep pointing out European involvement as if that somehow displaced American involvement (and thus continued U.S. control, the subject of this thread).
Again, your first quote explicitly states that EUV-LLC was American. The second quote refers to the "Labs", which in this case were the Lawrence Livermore, Sandia, and Berkeley National Laboratories.
Apple may have developed the M4 from the ground up but they still licensed the ISA from ARM.
The EUV-LLC was 100% financed by the private companies in the consortium, ASML being one.
"To access EUV technology, Intel in 1997 formed the EUV LLC, which entered into a cooperative R&D agreement (CRADA) with DOE. As part of this agreement, Intel and its partners would pay $250 million over three years to cover the direct salary costs of government researchers at the national labs and acquire equipment and materials for the labs, as well as cover the costs of its own researchers dedicated to the project. In return, the consortium would have exclusive rights to the technology in the EUV lithography field of use. At the time, it was the largest CRADA ever undertaken."
In return, the consortium would have exclusive rights to the technology in the EUV lithography field of use
It seems you are confusing the details and conditions of a contract never disclosed publicly, of base research, where a EU based company spent 20 years and billions of EU funds to create a workable product.
In any case if the US adrenaline fueled diplomacy, starts violating hundreds of years old borders of it's allies, respect for ambiguous IP Laws, will be pretty low in the list of priorities. :-)
> It seems you are confusing the details and conditions of a contract never disclosed publicly
The details have never been disclosed but it is well known that this agreement fell within the domain of national security and export controls.
Here's a press release [1] directly from ASML that references these export controls. Even though this PR actually relaxing DUV controls with respect to the U.S., it reaffirms that "EUV systems are also subject to license requirements."
"To access EUV technology, Intel in 1997 formed the EUV LLC, which entered into a cooperative R&D agreement (CRADA) with DOE. As part of this agreement, Intel and its partners would pay $250 million over three years to cover the direct salary costs of government researchers at the national labs and acquire equipment and materials for the labs, as well as cover the costs of its own researchers dedicated to the project. In return, the consortium would have exclusive rights to the technology in the EUV lithography field of use. At the time, it was the largest CRADA ever undertaken."
In return, the consortium would have exclusive rights to the technology in the EUV lithography field of use
That still looks like something that a novice might trip over when reading this. Just describing what it does is already a bit convoluted: it tests whether any value of a list of booleans, produced by a generator expression by testing membership of a value in some other list, is True.
I would have gone with the following, as it requires less mental unpacking:
if set(args) & set(["-h", "--help"]):
display_help()
Also, note that any() works with any iterable, the outer brackets are not needed given the list expression.
if any(a in ["-h", "--help"] for a in args):
display_help()
Being extremely pedantic, omitting the outer ()s is legal for a generator comprehension. That is, the following are equivalent:
foo(x for x in xs)
foo((x for x in xs))
gen = (x for x in xs)
foo(gen)
But these are not the same as:
foo([x for x in xs]
lst = [x for x in xs]
foo(lst)
It doesn't matter in this tiny example, but the difference between generators and lists can be very very important when working on very large amounts of data (e.g. processing a big text corpus), or a potentially-infinite stream of data.
on my phone and a bit discombobulated today, so we’ll see how i go with this
> That still looks like something that a novice might trip over when reading this.
my experience with “juniors” who start with python is that they think in lists and dictionaries. they don’t think in terms of set theory. that’s just the way python is taught.
i would definitely set interview questions where a “decent” solution involves using sets and see who gets it without iterating over lists (ha, setting an interview question on sets… geddit? i’ll see myself out).
> Just describing what it does is already a bit convoluted
yeah, but python only/main “juniors” primarily think in terms of lists, see above.
so, between making sure all juniors can read the code versus doing it succinctly, but juniors all need to learn about sets — practicality wins out quite often.
> I would have gone with the following, as it requires less mental unpacking:
> if set(args) & set(["-h", "--help"]):
> display_help()
if i were reviewing this code i’d ask you to switch it to
if set(args).intersection(set(["-h", "--help"])):
it is more verbose and more brackets, but it is more explicit and obvious what is happening to some junior who has never dealt with sets before (hmm what’s an intersection? should probably google it)
& is also used for the bitwise AND operator. plus some other stuff in various frameworks like django. so could lead to some confusion.
> Also, note that any() works with any iterable, the outer brackets are not needed given the list expression.
i generally HATE the overuse of generator expressions in python. everyone writes absolutely everything as an inline generator expression, making it hard to test.
but, rant aside, yes, this is probably the one i would pick during a review (likely after a discussion about how using the intersection method makes things less legible and then this gets suggested somewhere).
people don’t realise not every genexp needs to be a list. easy mistake to make with the “everything is a list or a dict” mental model.
Quarter-on-quarter or month-by-month would have been much more interesting, could have shown a change in trend. Especially after Musk's departure from the administration.