i work for a for-profit owned by a non-profit. This is a weird take. You can shape a product, sure you need to bring in a profit, but there are options of working with your owner (the non-profit) that you just don't have in a publicly traded company.
I am sure people would queue up for the job, fully aware of what it entails.
I think there was a funding campaign once where a developer offered to re-implement the missing Apple APIs, but since they basically put up a standard salary it didn't reach the funding target.
I always wonder at these attributions. Like all windows versions gave you bluescreen and ran Microsoft excel. To me not one stood out particularly bad or good compared to the others maybe after Windows 98 service pack something
Again, it is not a failure of him or his project that his development process heavily relied on him reviewing, modifying and merging patches and that he at times did not commit time to do that. He was not obliged to do more than what he did and vim was indeed very successful.
However, it is also very understandable why vim was forked by the neovim devs, in my view it has been a great success. That doesn't diminish Bram Molenaars achievements and contributions to the world.
It’s astonishing that you can arrive at this conclusion from my comment. He did great work, his development process did not scale. I am happy that I was able to use vim for more than a decade prior to neovim. The fact that after the neovim fork vims development started to pick up speed again is a fact (and doesn’t devalue bram’s work in any way).
I am happy with bram’s work on vim and with the neovim devs and their work on neovim.
Braam really took Neovim personally and got better at getting stuff into vim that he wouldn't merge before once neovim was arround as a competitor. I really lost track of vim in the last years because neovim is just a solid platform with an active community.
But honestly at work, I think I am the only one using either a vim or emacs (I kind of use neovim and emacs but primarily neovim). In my childhood there was a TV series called "The last of his class" and it really showed old people (retirement age) doing jobs that will be gone once their retire. While some jobs truly vanished, others just transformed so drastically that they cannot be likened anymore to the job those folks did. Anyway, I feel we are watching changes in developer tooling that will be seen as the end of an era.
Robert C Martin's (who is not my uncle) Clean Code book/advice is what I would call junior programmer material. Its good to get someone started to think about better ways of writing software (albeit is hasn't aged very well).
I don't recommend it to juniors anymore because it hasn't aged well and is for my taste hyperbolic in its promises.
IMHO clean code also is more focused on code implementing "business logic" than "systems programming" for example (probably a bit tricky to actually define what the difference is between these too).
Coincidentally 2012 is IIRC the year I bought (then a university student) my first smart phone. IIRC when doing my abroad term overseas the american students all had smartphones in like 2010, I think most where on plans that provided smartphones eventually.
So I would not be surprised if smartphones are part of the reason for a poor state of mental heath.
I am bringing up this point that there are tons of miserably tested Java/C++/etc applications because its a problem correlated with their usage, just like runtime type-errors correlate with dynamic languages. A fair comparison mentions both.
Of course a strong type system can drastically reduce the unit test coverage you need. But last time I checked, the strong type systems that allowed for this were all not used in our corporate code bases.
I mean by now it should be clear to everyone that there are certain trade-offs in the choice dynamic vs static typing.
I do like clarity of static type declarations, also the absence of weird polymorphism like functions returning a number or al ist of numbers depending on their parameters, etc.
But then, many statically typed code bases are just tested abysmally. It is as if the type signatures would constitute proper tests. I realise that you don't need to write as many tests in a statically typed setting, but in many cases - and esp. in underpowered type systems - the types won't test the program's logic.
I'd say I am a fairly layed back guy on web pages, I don't run no-script, I just care for being able to navigate a web page reasonably well.
To me it just seems that most SPAs that I see, are either so small that the page load of a django app would also be fast enough, or they are so overloaded with stuff and advertising, that I feel like the performance benefit of SPAs has just been reinvested in cluttering more. Also, facebook, who built react, don't seem to have embraced the SPA.
I guess there will be a sweet spot, also on whether you build "pages" or "apps". Maybe there is a point of interactivity that warrants a SPA. I just don't feel like many websites hit this, like microblogging/twitter/etc.
I am sure people would queue up for the job, fully aware of what it entails.