The big news here is that you now need a premium subscription to use any of Spotify's APIs. This means that if you wish to use Spotify's APIs to more easily share music with others, you must have a premium subscription.
What's gross to me is the language:
> all newly created Development Mode Client IDs will be created under the updated Development Mode rules and will have the following restrictions applied by default
> Development Mode use will require a Spotify Premium account
The language acts as if it's possible to have some sort of non-development mode application. If you look further, you'll see that a non-development mode application must be owned by an organization with more than 250k users.
This is a well put together list. One thing that frustrates me is that not all tooling respects mailmap. IntelliJ has an open feature/bug request for integrating mailmap into its git functionality. Additionally, the .git-blame-ignore-revs is more of a convention because you still have to manually configure that to be the file name to use.
I think tooling that can modify your source code to make it more modern is really cool stuff. OpenRewrite comes to mind for Java, but nothing comes to the top of my mind for other languages. And heck, I into recently learned about OpenRewrite and I've been writing Java for a long time.
Even though I don't like Go, I acknowledge that tooling like this built right into the language is a huge deal for language popularity and maturity. Other languages just aren't this opinionated about build tools, testing frameworks, etc.
I suspect that as newer languages emerge over the years, they'll take notes from Go and how well it integrates stuff like this.
Also IDE tooling for C#, Java, and many other languages; JetBrains' IDEs can do massive refactorings and code fixes across millions of lines of code (I use them all the time), including automatically upgrading your code to new language features. The sibling comment is slightly "wrong" — they've been available for decades, not mere years.
These can be applied across the whole project with one command, rewriting however many problems there are.
Also JetBrains has "structural search and replace" which takes language syntax into account, it works on a higher level than just text like what you'd see in text editors and pseudo-IDEs (like vscode):
For modern .NET you have Roslyn analyzers built in to the C# compiler which often have associated code fixes, but they can only be driven from the IDE AFAIK. Here's a tutorial on writing one:
Rust has clippy nagging you with a bunch of modernity fixes, and sometimes it can autofix them. I learned about a lot of small new features that make the code cleaner through clippy.
Does anyone have experience transforming a typescript codebase this way? Typescript's LSP server is not powerful enough and doesn't support basic things like removing a positional argument from a function (and all call sites).
Would jscodeshift work for this? Maybe in conjunction with claude?
jscodeshift supports ts as a parser, so it should work.
If you want to also remove argument from call sites, you'll likely need to create your own tool that integrates TS Language Service data and jscodeshift.
LLMs definitely help with these codemods quite a bit -- you don't need to manually figure out the details in manipulating AST. But make sure to write tests -- a lot of them -- and come up with a way to quickly fix bugs, revert your change and then iterate. If you have set up the workflow, you may be able to just let LLM automate this for you in a loop until all issues are fixed.
Haskell has had hlint for a very long time. Things like rewriting chained calls of `concat` and `map` into `concatMap`, or just rewriting your boolean expressions like `if a then b else False`.
Java and .NET IDEs have had this capabilities for years now, even when Eclipse was the most used one there were the tips from Checkstyle, and other similar plugins.
Yeah I've noticed the IDEs have this ability, but I think tooling outside of IDEs that can be applied in a repeatable way is much better than doing a bunch of mouse clicks in an IDE to change something.
I think the two things that make this a big deal are: callable from the command line (which means it can integrate with CI/CD or AI tools) and like I mentioned, the fact this is built into Go itself.
I work full time as a software engineer, and I also spend time writing code on side projects. I love working on my side projects because it means I get to spend a bunch of time learning the quirks of whatever tooling and frameworks I decide to use. I often develop opinions and personal standards that I bring with me to future side projects (and sometimes $dayjob), although I've never quite stood up all the components of one of my projects "quickly". I'll always find something to tinker with and learn about, which I think is acceptable for my personal projects, desirable even.
As I get more personal projects under my belt, I believe I'll be able to stand up projects more and more quickly, although it's never perfect. Even though I've been using a similar stack among my side projects for a couple of years now, dependencies get outdated. Sometimes you gotta jump to a new major version. Sometimes you wanna try out the "new way".
I like the idea of building up my own personal stack of tooling, frameworks, and patterns that I use, and could even encourage the use of at $dayjob, but for the reasons outlined above, I agree with the conclusion of the article, which is that an "IKEA of software" doesn't exist currently.
For now I'll keep happily tinkering in my side projects. This article was a good read.
That's simply not true. If you scratch a vinyl record, you've introduced a defect to it. If you scratch a CD, it's probably fine. Some CD players don't like scratched CDs, but for the most part CDs are very durable.
Plus if you damage a CD, simply rip it and burn it to a CDr. (did I mention that ripping a damaged CD usually works?)
You are right about vinyl sleeves being more attractive, though. I think that's its main selling point.
You can usually polish scratches out of CDs as well.
Where they’re actually much more vulnerable is on the printed side because the data layer sits just beneath that. Still more resilient than vinyl though, unless/until they get the dreaded rot.
They can also crack if dropped but that’s just as true of vinyl, if not moreso.
I don't really like that "enshittified" is being used here. You could argue that Plex, MinIO or Mattermost is being enshittified, but definitely not self hosting as a whole.
Enshittification also usually implies that switching to an alternative is difficult (usually because creating a competing service is near impossible because you'd have to get users on it). That flaw doesn't really apply to self hosting like it does with centralized social media. You can just switch to Jellyfin or Garage or Zulip. Migration might be a pain, but it's doable.
You can't as easily stop using LinkedIn or GitHub or Facebook, etc.
Same. I have been using Plex for 15 years. For my personal use case, it has not changed, ever. I don't encounter any "enshittification". For my purposes it continues to be exactly what I want, just as it always was.
> You could argue that Plex, MinIO or Mattermost is being enshittified, but definitely not self hosting as a whole.
That's probably not how you should interpret it. Self hosting as a whole is still a vastly better option. But if there is a significant enough public movement towards it, you can expect it to be targeted for enshittification too. The incidents related to Plex, MinIO and Mattermost should be taken as warning signals about what this may escalate into in the future. Here are the possible problems I foresee.
1. The situation with Plex, MinIO and Mattermost can be expected to happen more frequently. After a limit, the pain of frequent migration will become untenable. MinIO is a great example. Even the crowd on HN hadn't considered an alternative until then. Some of us learned about Garage, RustFS and Ceph S3 for the first time and we were debating about each of their pros and cons. It's very telling that that discussion was very lengthy.
2. There is a gradual nudge to move everything to the cloud and then monetize it. Mandatory online account for Win11, monetization of GH self-hosted runner (now suspended after backlash, I think) and cloudification of MS Office are good examples. You can expect a similar attempt on self hosted applications. Of course, most of our self-hosted software is currently open source. But if these big companies decide to embrace, extend and extinguish it, I'm not sure that the market will be prudent enough to stick with the FOSS options. Half of HN was fighting me a few days back when I suggested that we should strive to push the market towards serviceable modular hardware.
3. FOSS projects developed under companies are always at a higher risk of being hijacked or going rogue. To be clear, I'm not against that model. For example, I'm happy with Zulip's development and monetization model - ethical, generous and not too pushy. But mattermost shows where that can go wrong. Sure, they're are open source. But there are practical difficulties in easily overriding such issues.
4. At one time, we were expecting small form-factor headless computers (Plug computers [1]) like SheevaPlug and FreedomBox to become ubiquitous. That should still be an option, though I'm not sure where it's headed, given the current RAM situation. But even if they make a come back, it's very likely that OEMs will lock it down like smartphones today and make it difficult for you to exercise your choices of servers, if not outright restrict them. (If anybody wants to argue that normal people will never consider it, remember how smartphones were, before iPhone. We had a blackberry that was used only by a niche crowd.)
There are a lot of incentives to lock people up. Cheap labor is one of them. We should support incentives such as "keeping society safe", but incentives such as "profits and cheap labor" are incentives that may actually incentivize locking up innocent people.
So it's not about which one is worse, it's about not supporting something that could lead to corruption or an unfair system.
I'm building an application that can communicate with my Plex server, and also communicate with APIs like MusicBrainz and Spotify. From there I want to be able to track my Plex music rating history, and export playlists on Plex to Spotify for easier sharing with others.
There don't seem to be many automated tools out there that fit my need for this, so building out my own solution I have complete control over makes sense. It's a lot of fun to build this out exactly as I want to, rather than trying to configure a bunch of tools that I'm not familiar with and that don't meet my needs exactly.
The tooling I'm building up around this should hopefully make it easier for myself to get my playlists and track ratings off of Plex if I ever decide to abandon it for music listening.
Raspberry Pi is a bad choice for any application that frequently writes data to disk. Most Home Assistant setups will often have historical tracking of at least one data point, which means that it would be constantly writing to disk.
If you get a high quality SD card with more storage than you'll ever need (64GB, 128GB), you can have a stable system for a while until the SD card becomes corrupt. The larger SD cards help with longevity because it means the SD card can spread writes out over a larger area, which means it'll take longer for the SD card to go bad.
Make sure to always have RAM logging enabled on your Pi! DietPi defaults to RAM logging.
I agree with you, however convincing an entire team of devs to explicitly separate the interface of impure parts of code is very difficult.
If you introduce a mocking library to the test portion of the codebase, most developers will start to use it as a way to shortcut any refactoring they don't want to do. I think articles like this that try to explain how to better use mocks in tests are useful, although I wish they weren't necessary.
What's gross to me is the language:
> all newly created Development Mode Client IDs will be created under the updated Development Mode rules and will have the following restrictions applied by default > Development Mode use will require a Spotify Premium account
The language acts as if it's possible to have some sort of non-development mode application. If you look further, you'll see that a non-development mode application must be owned by an organization with more than 250k users.
reply