Opposing Hot take (possibly missing the joke....):
Coding was never the most valuable skill a software engineer contributed. Socially-capable engineers are going to be far more likely than PMs to 'shine' when agents can write code and engineers are afforded more time to engage with busines/customers/stakeholder/domain experts.
If my experience is any reflection of the norm, the avg PMs greatest value has never come from effectively determining the value or requirement of a product or translating requests/feedback to meaningful deliverables. It's been in providing cover (time) for engineers that could do the same job better, but are irreplaceable in the development process and so are more rare/valuable spending time doing development. When engineers no longer need to write code, they are a more direct line to effectively solving "Product-Led" business needs with technical solutions than a typical PM will be.
Nearly 100%. They don't call it that or use that term, and almost never _design_ thinking about the domain. But the absence of a formal 'domain model' still results in domain modeling - it's just done at the level of IC who may or may not have any awareness of the broader implications of the model they are creating.
> When I compare Java and Python in this respect -- and I do as a working programmer in both on a frequent basis -- Java is still slow.
I feel this as well, but I also think it's desirable. Java is slower to add features because the bar is quite a bit higher (especially with regard to backwards-compatibility).
I'd much rather have long previews and occasional removal of previews than have a language that becomes bloated and kneecapped by past rushed decisions.
There's Kotlin, Scala, Groovy, etc, if you want to run on the JVM with languages that offer more features (and footguns). I find the balance OK, personally.
I'd much rather them pull the `STR.` templates than push it forward knowing its not ergonomic in practice.
Going to assume you're talking frontend? Otherwise you'd be claiming most Spring, Django, Rails, Angular, <enter common backend framework> codebases are a nightmare to work in. While there are many good application architectures that don't fit into the MVC pattern (or introduce additional layers, e.g. - auth), separating DB ops (M) from business logic (C) and endpoint handlers (V) has always been rather maintainable/testable in my experience.
There are plenty of examples of real damage caused by ISPs being able to give preferential treatment to what _they_ think is important. A quick search comes up with plenty of examples:
1. ISPs limiting 3rd party VOIP solutions to avoid competition with their own VOIP solutions
2. Comcast blocking bitorrent communication was pretty obvious case of ISP preferentially limiting traffic
3. Verizon blocking text messages it didn't like the political message of
4. Verizon blocking 3rd party tethering apps, limiting users from using the bandwidth they pay for because they want to prevent competition
5. ATT prevented Facetime over their network unless users paid a higher subscription, even though users were already paying for data
6. Verizon limiting bandwidth for arbitrary reasons during natural disasters (first responders communication hampered due to limits justified through 'we don't need to follow net neutrality anymore')
Those are a few, there are MANY more examples in the US alone. Ya, some or many have been rolled back due to public outcry, but they shouldn't have happened to begin with. Allowing ISPs to determine which traffic is allowed based on their own self interest is just a terrible idea. Just because you haven't been harmed by it yet doesn't mean much, especially not in a country where the majority have only one or maybe two broadband ISPs to choose from. It WILL be abused, and we know this because it already has.
Do you have any examples post 2020, when net neutrality was revoked?
The internet has changed dramatically in the 10+ years since most of your examples and removal of net neutrality regulation has not seemed to cause any of those issues to resurface.
Twitch left Korea because of their crazy fees that would be prohibited under net neutrality. ISPs double dip and charge websites/companies like twitch, Youtube, etc to deliver data and also charge their users money at the same time.
https://restofworld.org/2024/south-korea-twitch-exit-problem...
>The problem stems from a “sender pays” rule instituted by South Korea’s Ministry of Science and ICT in 2016, to address the growing interconnection demands of video streaming and other bandwidth-intensive services. The rule requires companies to compensate the receiving networks for the traffic they send. It’s meant to tax heavy senders like Netflix and YouTube. Livestreaming sites like Twitch face particularly steep fees, as low latency is critical for live content.
>The “sender pays” model has been widely criticized by net neutrality advocates: In a recent statement calling for the repeal of the rule in the wake of Twitch’s exit, Open Net Korea warned that it “devastates the domestic content ecosystem” and “fragments the internet.”
One doesn't need an example from just a few months ago to see why this is a bad idea. Acting like the internet is so different today than 5/10 years ago so you can try to dismiss good examples is silly and acting in bad faith.
> One doesn't need an example from just a few months ago to see why this is a bad idea. Acting like the internet is so different today than 5/10 years ago so you can try to dismiss good examples is silly and acting in bad faith.
Also, it doesn't matter how old an example is: if we can all agree that companies doing this is bed, then we shouldn't allow it. "It was awful 10 years ago, and it would still be awful now, but it hasn't happened recently, so it must all be fine." is very short sighted.
Either net neutrality is good, and we should have it. Or net neutrality is bad, and you dont need "yeah but that was 10 years ago" as your counter. If you can make an argument for "ATT charging you to use facetime is a good thing", then make that argument. Not "but that was so long ago".
"Yeah I agree, those things were awful, lets make sure they happen again"
Interesting - I run Intellij Ultimate on Macbooks (both Intel and m2) and never have a crash. Infrequently run into bugs when upgrading the ide or 3rd party plugins; that requires some sort of cache invalidation or project reimport (couple times a year), but it's pretty smooth sailing for something I use across many different projects and languages. Java, kotlin, TS, python, groovy, shell scripting, json/xml/yaml/html/tsx are all generally touched 40+ hours on a weekly basis - it just works.
I do agree intellij is memory hungry with multiple projects open and a variety of languages involved, but RAM is cheap enough (and VMs/Docker/K8s hungry enough) that I just don't buy a machine with less than 32GB anyway, so I give intellij up to 6 GB and never give it another thought.
I don't do much android development, but do find Android Studio to feel clunky and slow at times, guessing because of the heavy integration with Android dependencies and emulation, but not really something I know enough about to comment with any sense of authority.
I think I view the situation in a similar fashion as you. There's absolutely nothing preventing a well architected modular monolith from establishing domain/module-specific persistence that is accessible only through APIs and connectable only through the owning domain/module. To accomplish that requires a decent application designer/architect, and yes, it needs to be considered ahead of time, but it's 100% doable and scalable across teams if needed.
There are definitely reasons why a microservice architecture could make sense for an organization, but "we don't have good application engineers/architects" should not be one of them. Going to a distributed microservice model because your teams aren't good enough to manage a modular monolith sounds like a recipe for disaster.
As in "this 748 square foot property was deemed 'affordable' when priced at $610k" - the implication being that it's a low bar to call something affordable, not that it's a low bar to _actually be_ affordable.
edit: sorry, this was already said by multiple other people - apparently had an outdated thread in the browser, those comments weren't there when I hit reply!
Coding was never the most valuable skill a software engineer contributed. Socially-capable engineers are going to be far more likely than PMs to 'shine' when agents can write code and engineers are afforded more time to engage with busines/customers/stakeholder/domain experts.
If my experience is any reflection of the norm, the avg PMs greatest value has never come from effectively determining the value or requirement of a product or translating requests/feedback to meaningful deliverables. It's been in providing cover (time) for engineers that could do the same job better, but are irreplaceable in the development process and so are more rare/valuable spending time doing development. When engineers no longer need to write code, they are a more direct line to effectively solving "Product-Led" business needs with technical solutions than a typical PM will be.