nobleach (u/nobleach)

nobleach commented on Vouch github.com/mitchellh/vouc... · Posted by u/chwtutha

sbr464 · a day ago

Unfortunately, the mob mentality, and gate keeping from the Reddit mod era, proves that these types of systems simply don’t work.

nobleach · 15 hours ago

We can see this effect from Mitchell's own release of his terminal emulator (Ghostty). It was invite-only. The in-crowd on YouTube/Twitter lorded it over others as a status symbol. None of it was based on actual engineering prowess. It was more like, "hey, you speak at conferences and people follow you on social media... you must be amazing".

nobleach commented on Why I don't have fun with Claude Code brennan.io/2026/01/23/cla... · Posted by u/ingve

simonw · 18 days ago

Right - it's not that I don't value "the act of creating & understanding the software" - that's the part I care about and enjoy the most.

The thing I don't value is typing out all of that code myself.

nobleach · 18 days ago

I think I can get on board with this view. In the earlier LLM days, I was working on a project that had me building models of different CSV's we'd receive from clients. I needed to build classes that represented all the fields. I asked AI to do it for me and I was very pleased with the results. It saved me an hour-long slog of copying the header rows, pasting into a class, ensuring that everything was camel-cased, etc. But the key thing here is that that work was never going to be the "hard part". That was the slog. The real dopamine hit was from solving the actual problem at hand - parsing many different variants of a file, and unifying the output in a homogenous way.

Now, if I had just said, "Dear Claude, make it so I can read files from any client and figure out how to represent the results in the same way, no matter what the input is". I can agree, I _might_ be stepping into "you're not gonna understand the software"-land. That's where responsibility comes into play. Reading the code that's produced is vital. I however, am still not at the point where I'm giivng feature work to LLMs. I make a plan for what I want to do, and give the mundane stuff to the AI.

nobleach commented on The Overcomplexity of the Shadcn Radio Button paulmakeswebsites.com/wri... · Posted by u/dbushell

kaizenb · 21 days ago

I use shadcn/ui for side projects, mostly coding with agents.

Good to have a base design system for building products.

Are there any alternatives? Coded systems, not just UI components.

nobleach · 21 days ago

Yup, agents LOVE Tailwind+ShadCN. Even when I've explicitly told them not to use it, it still creeps in. There's a lot of prior art out on GitHub and LLMs can't help themselves. FWIW, the result does tend to look nice enough. For a POC I can't complain. If I'm really going to roll up my sleeves and get into the code though? I don't think I'd enjoy all of it.

nobleach commented on The Overcomplexity of the Shadcn Radio Button paulmakeswebsites.com/wri... · Posted by u/dbushell

adithyassekhar · 21 days ago

The biggest mistake I did in 2025 was picking shadcn because it was so hyped. Saw it importing from radix anytime you enter a command. First red flag. Then I saw the radio component. Second red flag. You should see what they've done with the select component. But we were too far into the deadline for a project with running targets. So I just gave up and asked copilot to make the changes for me, and I'm not a fan of AI anything.

Funny enough we did a POC for the same project before that without shadcn and looking back, it's so much leaner and easier.

I might just break one night and redo the whole ui library with vanilla html elements.

nobleach · 21 days ago

They hype-train on all of this stuff is unreal. React+NextJS+Tailwind+ShadCN is just a mess. It's complexity piled on deeper complexity - for little gain! But suggest any of that in many circles and you'll get the standard, "skill issu bro" comebacks. Say what you want about Remix/ReactRouter 7 (there are plenty of issues to talk about there) but at least those guys _tried_ to stay closer to existing web standards. I could go on and on about the disaster of NextJS caching. I could point out RSCs being one way to solve a problem that could already be solved by loaders in other frameworks....

Tailwind was my moment of saying, "Nope, I'm gonna sit this one out". I have a few trusted friends that assure me I'm missing out. I've told them to come back to me after they've done their first major refactor. If they tell me it was a pleasant experience, I'll have another look.

nobleach commented on JavaScript's For-Of Loops Are Fast waspdev.com/articles/2026... · Posted by u/surprisetalk

g947o · a month ago

Funny enough, for-of is not allowed in Airbnb eslint config, and you are expected to use forEach instead:

https://github.com/airbnb/javascript/issues/1122

https://github.com/airbnb/javascript/issues/1271

Because the style guide thinks "forEach is cleaner than for-of". (No I did not make that up.)

https://github.com/airbnb/javascript?tab=readme-ov-file#iter...

nobleach · a month ago

AirBnB doesn't use this config and you probably shouldn't either. Much of this was based on Jordan Harband's opinions in 2016. He's likely changed his mind since then. Perhaps not. But I bet he'd tell you to do your own profiling and consider your own targets before blindly accepting a one-size-fits-all configuration for your linter.

nobleach commented on JavaScript's For-Of Loops Are Fast waspdev.com/articles/2026... · Posted by u/surprisetalk

trgn · a month ago

And it's still worse, and has to rely on contrived setups to almost reach parity. People will insist on using a new language construct, even if it's objectively worse than the standard. What's so hard about a conventional for (let i ...) loop?

At least for of is better than forEach (ill never forgive crockford for goading people into this functional-lite code with horrible runtime footprint), but these things are fetishes.

nobleach · a month ago

>new language construct

This was added to the language 10 years ago. So while it's "newer" than a plain old for-loop, it's definitely not "new". It was designed to work with Symbol.iterator. This is the mechanism whereby one can iterate anything that implements the Symbol.iterator interface.

As far as why folks won't just do simple for-loops, it's the same reasining every language tends to implement a "foreach", because there are annoying off-by-one errors lurking in the < vs <=. Of course one could argue that developers should be smart enough to handle this. But that's an argument even older than for-loops.

nobleach commented on Show HN: Terminal UI for AWS github.com/huseyinbabal/t... · Posted by u/huseyinbabal

kristiandupont · a month ago

Only tangentially related, but: what is the appeal of TUI's? I don't really understand.

The advantages of CLI's are (IMO) that they compose well and can be used in scripts. With TUI's, it seems that you just get a very low fidelity version of a browser UI?

nobleach · a month ago

I can give an anecdote if that's helpful. Imagine you're wanting to download an object from S3. You start to type out the command in your CLI. You hit enter, only to realize, see that the object is not found. You have a typo somewhere... but where? The bucket is huge so, you resort to listing the contents and passing the results through grep. Then you copy the object to the clipboard so that you can edit your original command.

I see one of the other comments mentions K9s. The exact same use cases manifest with that tool. YES, if it's just a one-shot, nothing beats the CLI. Many things where you need to investigate the resources a bit more, lend themselves to a TUI (or GUI if that's your thing).

I come from an era where folks could fly through tasks on dumb terminals. (AS/400 apps). The moment we gave them "better" gui tools, they slowed way down. No matter how many times we told them, "you can still use your TAB and ENTER keys!" TUIs were just a sweet spot.

nobleach commented on Tesla’s 4680 battery supply chain collapses as partner writes down deal by 99% electrek.co/2025/12/29/te... · Posted by u/coloneltcb

nobleach · a month ago

I don't want to pile on you as I see you've already taken a hit - so I'll leave the voting out of this. But consider how many people you knew in the 80s/90s with a Laser Disc player. It was very niche. You likely had one techy nerd friend, or you had a friend that had a dad that was always buying "the next big thing". I think I knew ONE GUY that bought a laser disc player. Contrast that with just Tesla (not even EVs). You likely know 4 or 5 friends or family that own one. The model Y was the best selling vehicle last year. Whether that trend lasts into the 2050s, none of us can know. But calling it a failure? I just don't see it.

nobleach commented on Tesla’s 4680 battery supply chain collapses as partner writes down deal by 99% electrek.co/2025/12/29/te... · Posted by u/coloneltcb

jqpabc123 · a month ago

For years, we’ve been told that the 4680 cell was the “holy grail” that would allow Tesla to produce a $25,000 electric car.

For years, we've been told a lot of things that have never come to fruition.

Just 6 months ago, we were told that Robotaxi would be available to half the US population by the end of the year.

https://electrek.co/2025/07/23/elon-musk-with-straight-face-...

nobleach · a month ago

And of those things we've been told, a high percentage of them have had to do with battery technology. Science is full of discoveries, science at scale doesn't always work out like we've hoped.

nobleach commented on Internal RFCs saved us months of wasted work highimpactengineering.sub... · Posted by u/romannikolaev

jojobas · 2 months ago

This guy invented a spec?

nobleach · 2 months ago

In our org, an RFC precedes a tech spec. The RFC literally is the "let's formally talk about this before we nail down a specification". For smaller specs, annotated comments can serve this purpose. Before this process, what we had found was no one was paying attention to tech discussions in our eng slack channels. Having an RFC gave us an inflection point where we could point back and say, "an official discussion happened, we decided to move forward with a spec".