In user studies it was found that beginner/novice coders (or really, users that aren't SWEs) autocompletion was the most requested feature for improvement in IDE support. It's foundational for understanding what they can write and making sure it's valid.
And that makes sense to me, if you have a lot of experience in a codebase and ecosystem it's not as important. If you don't then typing `.` and seeing a bunch of aptly named methods show up, then snippet completion for their arguments to tab through them, you are immediately productive. Autocomplete turns known unknowns into known knowns.
My org requires screenshots and/or gifs in the PR. Tooling is great, but not everything needs automation all the time when a little bit of manual work needs to be done anyway.
Media companies have been using the value of "content you want to watch" to subsidize "content you don't know you want to watch" for about a century now, the back catalogs are what will keep you paying but that only retains value so long as new content can be added to it.
What I've found working with geometric data like SVG is that your software will use some kind of internal representation that looks quite different than SVG, so you will do some kind of parsing into your data structure and then serializing out to SVG at the end. Even doing something like serialize(parse(number)) is not guaranteed to be lossless.
The only way to avoid doing that losslessly is to track the original text that you parsed into your IR nodes, which is a bit expensive if you think about it. A double is 64 bits, most shape/path data is packed and dense lists of doubles. Interleaving strings or ids that can be used to track them can be really annoying to thread through your program without performance or memory issues.
> There was a super specific timeline in terms of what month features would land out as far as 2-3 years (e.g. "support for $os in $current_year + 2, open source in $current_year + 3), and but then as the months went by, the items on the timeline would not land, and the timeline would get revised pushing things out with no announcement of any sort.
I assumed that there was a English language barrier from the original author that made the mistake of present versus future tense for the feature list. When combined with a lack of feature tracking that looked to people like big claims were made without substance, but to me it always felt like everything in V was "work in progress."
They definitely have a hacker mindset to get the minimum working examples through and keep on developing, which is admirable in some ways. The downside is I don't think there's a lot of development experience hanging around that project, so things stick to minimal implementations.
No noncompetes/anti moonlighting laws and billions in VC keep the answer at "yes."
If you want to get something built that has never been done before, SV is still the best place to find the people that can do it the quickest and the money to fund it. I've worked all over the US and its amazing how wrong everywhere else is.
What is stupid about it? It makes a lot of sense given how programming languages work.