The studies you are talking about are probably outdated, it's difficult to deny the actual productivity boost of coding agents.

I'm not talking about the quantity of code produced, but about actual user needs that are now resolved that would not have been before.

The main productivity gain will not come from existing software engineer, but from people that couldn't code at all before but are now able to do things by themselves. We are still very early.

As a developer who has not been able to get any boost in productivity from coding agents, I find it incredibly easy to deny.

I’m a solopreneur, if I could lighten my load I would. However I have yet to save time using coding agents, with the exception of “I made this change to my model file, update all model to match the new format.” Which is cool, but maybe 0.01% of my job, and took a 1 hour task down to 10 minutes.

> The studies you are talking about are probably outdated, it's difficult to deny the actual productivity boost of coding agents.

Is it? Can you produce any evidence for such a productivity boost?

It still takes the same mindset and skills to use AI productively and effectively as regular programming. The productivity boost only applies if you know what you’re doing and can actually steer the agent carefully.

Vibecoding hits a glass ceiling very quickly and this will not be solved incrementally. Besides, if the agent could work autonomously to that degree then it would no longer need any prompting at all and we’re living in a very different world. On the other hand that would make the debt actually meaningless, so I guess that is 'a' solution.

Almost nobody uses it though, which is too bad, especially since multi-head functions sometimes make it difficult to follow the execution path.

I'd like to do step by step but I cannot plug the debugger to VScode from inside a docker container.

No one I know wears the shoes I like to wear, which is too bad, because that means I can't enjoy them as much now.

I meant that it doesn't get much love from the community, it's pretty clear it's not used much, that's why things like `dbg` gets added to the language.

I've used it, but I've very rarely needed to do so.

People use it.

Some do, but the DX was bad last time I tried, I did not find a way to use it with my setup.

T'es perdu, chaton ?

Notion is nice

Until you try to leave with your data.

They all seem like great features.

On paper yes. The problem is that they clutter the UI, they trigger at weird times and they turn out to be less useful that they may appear.

Then there's also people, like me, who just want the browser to browse the web. I don't want link preview (annoying feature), Firefox isn't my PDF viewer, I don't have that many tabs that I need to group them and I don't use AI chatbots.

So having a single button to disable all of these features is pretty great. I still want a Firefox Lite, that just does browsing and allows me to add the few extension I want to whatever feature I believe is missing.

You might like Konform Browser. Optional features like that disabled with the nag removed (but local ones can still be enabled in preferences).

https://codeberg.org/konform-browser/source

I started clicking a 'next page' link before I'd actually finished reading something (so I kept holding the mouse buttown down), and a couple of seconds later Firefox popped up a 'link preview' box informing me that I was clicking on a link to a web forum. Wow, thanks, couldn't have figured that out myself. (It did not actually summarize the next page in any way.)

I agree with them, the French translation is way too casual/aggressive compared to the English text.

I wouldn't trust this website.

It comes across as influencer speech targeted to edgy young people with a touch of "how do you do, fellow kids?".

Pretty sure a modern LLM would yield a better one.

Maybe consider renaming this since pgTAP [0] exists and has nothing to do with this.

[0]: https://pgtap.org/

I don't get the transaction bit. At least with postgres, a transaction doesn't guarantee that all statements in it see the data at the same point in time (actually, it's not even guaranteed for subqueries).

Also, often, the transactional database servers is more difficult to scale than application servers so from a technical standpoint, it makes sense to do this glue work in app code.

> a transaction doesn't guarantee that all statements in it see the data at the same point in time

This depends on the transaction isolation level. If you use snapshot or serializable this should be the case (but you may have aborted transactions due to optimistic concurrency).

You are right, but note that the default isolation level is "Read committed" in postgres.

Doesn’t it guarantee consistency from the time the transaction started (assuming read committed isolation)? It guarantees you won’t see something “later” than when your transaction began.

https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/transaction-iso.html

I’m likely misunderstanding what you mean by time.

Read committed (which is the default), doesn't guarantee that. See "Nonrepeatable Read" and "Phantom Read" which are both possible in your documentation page.

SSI scales fine for most workloads as long as you correctly mark your read-only transactions.

We migrated to Remix a few months ago, never going back.

That would be Remix: https://remix.run

See: https://www.epicweb.dev/why-i-wont-use-nextjs