Good code was approximately never valued in enterprise. How many companies worth billions or even trillions have webpages that take 5+ seconds to load text, and use Electron for their desktop applications? In that regard, nothing has changed.

There is still a market for good code in the world, however. The uses of software are nearly infinite, and while certain big-name software gets a free pass on being shitty due to monopoly and network effects, other types of software will still find people who will pay for them if they are responsive, secure, not wildly buggy, and can add new features without a 6 month turnaround time because the codebase isn't a crime against humanity.

On another note, there have been at least four articles on the front page today about the death of coding. As there are every other day. I know I'm tired of reading them, but don't people get bored of writing them?

Maybe you should think about why a company like Valve could have never been founded in the EU instead.

are they vibe coding?

Hopefully it gets added to this comparison:

https://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://github.com/python/typ...

If that table is anything to go by, Pyright is not to be underestimated.

I have briefly tried ty (LSP) in Emacs and it seems to work well so far. The only questionable thing I've encountered is that when the signature of a method is shown, the type annotations of some parameters seem to be presented in a particularly verbose form compared to what I'm used to - maybe they're technically correct but it can be bit much to look at.

Anyway, odds are pretty good that ty is what I will end up using long-term, so thanks and congrats on releasing the first beta!

It is quite the juggling act: you have employees demanding to be paid more, the cost of goods/inflation steadily rising, while customers wanting everything to be cheaper.

Something has to give somewhere, the challenging part would be to know where.

Indeed. Engineering is the act of employing our best predictive theorems to manifest machines that work in reality. Here we see people doing the opposite, describing theorems (and perhaps superstitions) that are hoped to be predictive, on the basis of observing reality. However insofar as these theorems remain poor in their predictive power, their application can scarcely be called engineering.