标签：#dev

There is a special kind of productivity theater that happens during a developer job search. You wake up motivated, open LinkedIn, and apply to 27 positions before breakfast. You press the Easy Apply button with the precision of a professional gamer. By the end of the week, you have submitted 143 applications, updated a spreadsheet with several impressive numbers, and developed a minor emotional dependency on refreshing your inbox. Unfortunately, your inbox still looks like an abandoned shopping mall. No interviews. No useful feedback. No clear explanation. Perhaps two automated emails thanking you for your interest before informing you that the company decided to “move forward with other candidates,” a sentence that has become the corporate version of disappearing into the fog. So you decide to solve the problem by applying to another 200 jobs. This is not a strategy. It is email-based agriculture. You are throwing resumes into the soil and waiting for a recruiter to grow. Volume Matters. Blind Volume Does Not. Let us begin with an uncomfortable truth: getting your first developer job usually requires applications. Sometimes it requires many applications. The market will not discover your GitHub profile through divine intervention. A recruiter is unlikely to wake up in the middle of the night with a mysterious urge to search for junior developers who recently deployed a to-do list. You need to put yourself in front of companies consistently. However, there is a significant difference between applying consistently while improving your positioning and clicking every blue button on LinkedIn until one of you collapses. Volume is useful when it generates information. Blind volume only produces exhaustion. If you apply to 300 jobs with the same generic resume, the same generic portfolio, and the same vague explanation of your skills, you are not running 300 experiments. You are repeating the same experiment 300 times and acting surprised when the result remains unchanged.

When I decided to ship this blog in four languages, I had a clear mental ranking. English would win on volume. Spanish would be runner-up because of the sheer speaker count. Japanese would stay steady because it's my native language. Portuguese, I figured, was the long tail. I added it mostly out of completism. Twenty-two days later, the GA4 snapshot disagrees with every part of that ranking. PT: 748 pageviews , 709 sessions EN: 195 pageviews , 176 sessions JA: 27 pageviews , 29 sessions ES: 7 pageviews , 7 sessions That is Portuguese pulling roughly 3.8× English, 28× Japanese, and 107× Spanish on the same blog, same publishing cadence, same author. One Portuguese article on its own (a post about a 24-hour security agent: 375 PV) got more pageviews than my entire English blog combined. I wrote that article hoping Spanish would surprise me. Instead Portuguese surprised me, and Spanish quietly continued to not exist. The setup, so you can discount my numbers properly This is not a clean comparative experiment. It's a single blog, kenimoto.dev , running four language directories ( /en/ , /ja/ , /pt/ , /es/ ). Articles get translated through a cross-language LLM pipeline, then hand-edited for register and locale (BR Portuguese vs PT Portuguese, LatAm-neutral Spanish vs Spain Spanish). The window: 2026-04-30 to 2026-05-21, 22 daily snapshots. EN has 26 articles. JA has 25. PT has 17. ES has 10. So PT has fewer articles than EN and still beats it almost 4 to 1. If you stop reading here, take this one thing: language asymmetry can swallow article-count asymmetry whole . Adding articles in a saturated language is slower than adding articles in an underserved one. Why Portuguese pulled ahead I don't think the answer is "Portuguese readers like me more." I think three asymmetries are stacking on top of each other. 1. TabNews is a community door English doesn't have TabNews is a Brazilian developer community where you can post a technical article and have it actually read by h

Take Aways Performance and Scalability : Pinecone is a managed machine-learning database that provides exceptional levels of performance and scaling capability due to its cloud-based design. Because of its distributed architecture and ability to do near-neighbor searches, Pinecone handles such tasks as similarity searching and anomaly detection on very large datasets efficiently. Easy to Integrate : One of the standout benefits of Pinecone is how easily it integrates through a high-level API and SDKs across several programming languages. This gives developers a real productivity boost by making vector storage, indexing and querying for machine learning applications far less complicated to implement. Strategic Factors : Pinecone brings advanced features and managed services that genuinely enhance machine learning workflows, though it does come with considerations like recurring costs and vendor lock-in. Organizations should think carefully about these factors alongside the benefits of streamlined database management and optimized performance before committing to adoption. The importance of storing and accessing information properly to build the best possible machine learning model really cannot be overstated. Pinecone addresses this directly by offering a Vector Database built specifically for ML queries, creating a strong opportunity to tap into the power of cloud databases. Designed from the ground up as a cloud-native application, Pinecone makes it straightforward to index and search complex, high-dimensional vector data — which in turn makes building state-of-the-art machine learning applications much more approachable and helps software development companies deliver more value to their clients through custom software development. What is Pinecone? Pinecone is a fully managed Vector Database that lets you store, index, and query complex vector data quickly and efficiently. Because of its vector-native design, the primary use cases for Pinecone fall within similar

I recently launched SpotClause, a small AI contract review and reader tool. The idea came from a simple problem: contracts are often difficult to read, especially for freelancers, consultants, and small teams who receive agreements but do not work with contract language every day. SpotClause helps users: summarize contracts in plain language identify key clauses understand payment terms, renewal terms, cancellation language, obligations, and deadlines compare two contract versions and see added, removed, changed, and unchanged wording I also added a Contract Clause Library with plain-language explanations of common clauses like cancellation clauses, renewal clauses, payment terms, confidentiality clauses, and notice periods. You can try the AI Contract Review Tool here: AI Contract Review Tool You can explore the Contract Clause Library here: Contract Clause Library SpotClause is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice. The goal is to help people understand contract language more clearly. I would appreciate feedback on: whether the homepage explains the product clearly whether the AI contract review page feels understandable what clause explanations would be useful to add next

Due to a growing influx of questions on this topic, it has been decided to commit a monthly thread dedicated to this topic to reduce the number of repeat posts on this topic. These types of posts will no longer be allowed in the main thread. Many of these questions are also addressed in the sub FAQ or may have been asked in previous monthly career threads . Subs dedicated to these types of questions include r/cscareerquestions for general and opened ended career questions and r/learnprogramming for early learning questions. A general recommendation of topics to learn to become industry ready include: HTML/CSS/JS Bootcamp Version control Automation Front End Frameworks (React/Vue/Etc) APIs and CRUD Testing (Unit and Integration) Common Design Patterns You will also need a portfolio of work with 4-5 personal projects you built, and a resume/CV to apply for work. Plan for 6-12 months of self study and project production for your portfolio before applying for work. submitted by /u/AutoModerator [link] [留言]

Hi everyone, We're building an automation platform using Playwright where all browser automation runs on the backend. For portals that require manual intervention (OTP, CAPTCHA, MFA, document uploads, etc.), we're exploring a way to let users temporarily view and interact with the running backend browser from our React application, after which automation would resume automatically. Our goals are: Keep all automation logic on the backend Support human intervention only when necessary Scale to bulk processing workflows Deploy reliably in production We're currently evaluating approaches such as CDP screencasting, VNC/noVNC, and WebRTC-based browser streaming. Has anyone built something similar in production? What architecture did you choose, and what were the biggest challenges around scalability, latency, security, session management, and CAPTCHA/OTP workflows? Also, is there a better alternative than live browser streaming for this use case? Any advice, experiences, or open-source projects would be greatly appreciated. submitted by /u/Loud_Ice4487 [link] [留言]

Shopify Staff Engineer Guilherme Carreiro discusses building and scaling highly customizable platforms. Using Shopify’s Liquid theme system as a case study, he explains how to balance extreme design flexibility with low-latency performance under massive traffic. He shares insights on implementing secure domain-specific languages, native code extensions, and resilient developer tooling. By Guilherme Carreiro

The AI productivity paradox states that AI scales whatever abstraction it is built on. If that abstraction is structurally brittle, it scales structural brittleness. This article shows how, to build a future of reliable, AI-driven test automation, we must stop scaling DOM-centric abstractions and build a new testing paradigm grounded in perception and intent. By Amanul Chowdhury, Vinay Gummadavelli

Hello Dev Community! 👋 It is officially Day 8 of my journey to master the MERN stack! After spending the first week structuring with HTML and styling with CSS, today I finally started learning the core language of web logic: JavaScript . Moving from static designs to actual programming logic feels like unlocking a whole new level of web development. 🧠 Key Learnings From Day 8 Today was all about setting up the foundation in JavaScript and understanding how code runs in the browser. Here is what I covered: 1. The Browser Console & Execution I learned that every browser has a built-in environment to run JavaScript. Writing my very first console.log("Hello World"); and seeing it print in the developer tools console was the perfect start. 2. Variables: Storing Data Safely I learned how to store information using variables and the crucial differences between modern variable declarations: let : For values that can change later in the program (mutable). const : For values that must remain constant and cannot be reassigned (immutable). Note: I also read about var , but learned why modern JavaScript avoids it due to scoping issues. 3. Data Types Fundamentals Data needs a type so the computer knows how to handle it. Today I practiced with: Strings: Plain text enclosed in quotes (e.g., "MERN Stack" ). Numbers: Integers and decimals without quotes (e.g., 2026 ). Booleans: Simple true or false states (e.g., isLearning = true ). 🛠️ What I Actually Code / Experimented With Since I am just starting with core logic, I didn't write code directly into my HTML webpage layout today. Instead, I created a script.js file, linked it to my project, and built a basic script in the console that: Stores a user's name and learning status in variables. Dynamically calculates values (like years left until a milestone). Outputs formatted statements into the browser console. It is simple, but understanding how data moves in the background is incredibly exciting. 🎯 My Goal for Tomorrow (Day 9) Tomorr

Not every old business web app needs a full Internet Explorer environment. That sounds obvious, but it is easy to miss when a legacy intranet, ERP, OA, or ASP.NET WebForms page fails in Chrome or Microsoft Edge. The first instinct is often to put the whole system into IE mode. Sometimes that is absolutely correct. Other times, the page mostly works in Chromium and only breaks on older JavaScript or DOM assumptions. The useful first step is to separate those two cases. Case 1: the page needs a real IE engine Use Microsoft Edge IE mode, a Windows virtual machine, remote desktop, or another managed legacy-browser path if the page depends on: ActiveX controls COM integration VBScript Trident or MSHTML rendering behavior Browser Helper Objects Java applets strict IE7 or IE8 document modes A Chrome extension or JavaScript compatibility layer should not be presented as a replacement for those requirements. If the workflow depends on the IE engine, the browser engine is part of the application runtime. Case 2: the page mostly works, but old browser assumptions fail There is another common category. The page loads in Chrome or Edge, authentication works, and the main UI appears, but a small set of old behaviors fails. Examples include: empty frameset entry pages loading pages that do not finish redirecting attachEvent window.event event.srcElement showModalDialog -style picker flows document.frames older WebForms date fields that call a calendar function on focus For maintained source code, the best answer is still to fix the application. Replace old event APIs, remove synchronous dialog assumptions, and modernize generated WebForms scripts where possible. But in many real organizations, the legacy page is owned by a vendor, frozen department system, or migration backlog. In that situation, a scoped compatibility layer can be worth testing before moving the whole workflow into IE mode. A low-risk triage sequence I use this sequence: Pick one legacy hostname. Pick one failing

Mañana cambia el billing de Copilot: las premium requests dan paso a AI Credits calculados por tokens. Esto es lo que debe revisar un equipo técnico. El 1 de junio de 2026 GitHub Copilot empieza a migrar desde el modelo de premium requests hacia billing por uso con GitHub AI Credits. La unidad deja de ser una petición premium más o menos abstracta y pasa a reflejar consumo de tokens: entrada, salida y tokens cacheados, con precios vinculados al modelo usado. Decisión rápida Qué cambia mañana La idea de GitHub es alinear precio con coste real. Una pregunta rápida a un modelo ligero y una sesión larga de agente sobre varios archivos ya no son equivalentes. Para equipos técnicos, eso obliga a tratar Copilot como infraestructura de IA, no como una extensión de editor de coste fijo. Este artículo complementa la guía previa de AI Credits, pero se centra en el cambio operativo inmediato: qué mirar antes de que el modelo entre en vigor mañana. Briefing Qué es un AI Credit GitHub define AI Credits como una unidad de billing donde 1 AI Credit equivale a 0,01 USD. Cada interacción que usa modelos consume tokens. Esos tokens se valoran según el modelo y se convierten a créditos. En planes individuales, Copilot Pro, Pro+ y Max incluyen asignaciones mensuales de AI Credits. En organizaciones y empresas, cada licencia aporta créditos que se agrupan en un pool compartido a nivel de billing entity. La diferencia clave con el sistema anterior es que el consumo puede variar mucho dentro de una misma función. Dos sesiones de chat no cuestan igual si una es una pregunta corta y otra arrastra contexto de repositorio, varias iteraciones y generación de código extensa. Lectura práctica Qué consume créditos y qué no GitHub documenta que consumen AI Credits funciones como Copilot Chat, Copilot CLI, Copilot cloud agent, Copilot Spaces, Spark y agentes de terceros. Las code completions y Next Edit suggestions no se facturan en AI Credits y siguen incluidas en planes de pago. Esta distinción es

Hey everyone 👋 I'm exploring ideas for an AI-powered developer tool, but before building anything, I want to understand the real problems developers face every day. There are already plenty of tools that generate code. What I'm interested in is everything around coding: Debugging Code reviews Technical debt Documentation Dependency upgrades Testing Deployment Architecture decisions Learning large codebases I'd love to hear from you: A few questions: What's the most frustrating part of your workflow? What task takes more time than it should? What's something you wish AI could do for you today? Have current AI tools (ChatGPT, Claude, Cursor, Copilot, Gemini, etc.) failed you in any important way? If you could eliminate one developer headache forever, what would it be? I've also created a short 2-minute survey: 🔗 https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSf1M5d2y-0RXEIhrbDBtS5gC900YuzWl43cJCxGUrU38MyeDQ/viewform?usp=publish-editor I'll happily share the survey results and key findings with the community once I collect enough responses. Thanks in advance for any feedback!

Integrations kill product velocity. Every SaaS team knows this. You ship a killer feature, customers love it, then they ask: "Can it sync with Salesforce? What about HubSpot? Zendesk?" Suddenly your roadmap is hostage to building connector after connector. Each one takes 2-3 weeks. Your engineers hate it. Your customers wait. Competitors who solve this faster win deals. The standard response has been iPaaS platforms. They help, but they don't fundamentally change the game. You still need engineers to map fields, handle edge cases, and maintain brittle connections. The real breakthrough isn't just automation , it's making integrations LLM-native from the ground up . What Actually Makes an Integration Layer "AI-Native"? Let's cut through the marketing speak. Every B2B tool now claims to be "AI-powered." Most just added a ChatGPT wrapper to their UI. Real AI-native architecture means three things: 1. LLM-Ready Connectivity via MCP Servers Model Context Protocol (MCP) is Anthropic's standard for connecting LLMs to external data sources. If your integration layer doesn't support MCP servers natively, your AI features will always be bolted on, not built in. MCP servers expose your SaaS data to language models in a structured way. Instead of engineers writing custom API wrappers for every LLM interaction, you get a standardized interface. Claude, GPT-4, and future models can query your integration layer directly. Example: A customer support tool with native MCP integration lets an AI agent pull ticket history from Zendesk, check Stripe subscription status, and update Salesforce records in one conversation flow. No custom code. No brittle middleware. 2. AI-Mapped Data Migration Data migration is where most SaaS deals die. Customer says "we'll switch from ServiceNow to your ITSM if you migrate our 50,000 tickets." Your team estimates 6 weeks. Deal stalls. Traditional migration means: Manual field mapping spreadsheets Custom scripts for data transformation Downtime windows Hi

I've been thinking about a specific version of AI-assisted debugging. Not asking which tool is smarter, but asking about the behavior change that would come from removing the context-setup step entirely. Right now I self-select which debugging problems to involve AI on. The threshold is roughly: is this complex enough that the setup cost is worth paying? Copy the relevant code, copy the error, add context about the project structure, ask my question. It takes a few minutes to do well. If the AI could see my IDE directly, no copying, no pasting, just "look at this and tell me what's wrong," I think my threshold would drop significantly. I'd ask about more things. Smaller things. Things I currently just push through myself because they don't seem worth the setup overhead. Whether the answers would be better because the AI sees the actual screen is a separate question. But the behavioral change from removing the friction might matter more than any quality improvement. If AI debugging had zero setup cost, would you use it differently? Or do you think the current copy-paste step is actually useful because it forces you to think through the problem before you ask? submitted by /u/Professional-Peach-3 [link] [留言]

I use Claude a lot for complex problem-solving and Copilot inline in VS Code for quick completions. The difference in actual usage frequency is something I've started noticing. Copilot I use constantly, basically without thinking about it. Claude I use maybe five times a day, and half the time I talk myself out of opening it because I already know what's coming: copy the relevant code, paste it, add context about the project structure and what I was trying to do, explain the error I'm getting, then finally ask the actual question. The friction is small. But it's consistent enough that I default to struggling through something myself, or Googling, instead of opening Claude. The specific case that gets me most is when the problem is visible on screen. I can see the bug. Claude could probably help me solve it faster. But the work of getting what's visible into Claude's context is just enough friction to make me not bother. Is the gap between ""AI embedded in the tool you're working in"" and ""AI in a separate chat window"" meaningful to other developers, or is this a habit thing I should just push through?" submitted by /u/Queasy_Hotel5158 [link] [留言]

Hey r/webdev 👋 I recently launched UtilCraft , a collection of free browser-based tools for devs and creators. The whole idea is that everything runs locally, nothing gets uploaded anywhere. Right now it has 16 tools across 6 categories: 🛠️ Developer tools (UUID generator, JSON formatter, Regex tester, Cron generator…) 🖼️ Image tools (compressor, converter, resizer) 📄 PDF tools (merge, split) 🔒 Security (password generator, hash generator) 📝 Text tools 🔄 Converters (color, unit) I'd love to know two things from people who actually write code for a living: 1. What tool do you find yourself Googling way too often that you wish was just… there? 2. Any of the existing tools that feel half-baked or could be way more useful? No account needed, no sign-up, just open and use. Roast it, suggest stuff, I'm all ears. 🙏 submitted by /u/Yolmack [link] [留言]

Hi everyone, I need some career advice. I'm from a non-IT background and have been working in a small company for the last 2.5 years, mainly doing HTML and WordPress work. I don't have much exposure to modern development, and with AI changing the industry so fast, I'm worried about my future career growth. I'm thinking of joining an offline Full Stack Development course in Chennai because online learning hasn't worked well for me. I'm confused between **Java Full Stack** and **Python Full Stack**. For those who have experience in this field: * Which stack would you recommend? * Which institute is better: Besant Technologies, Greens Technology, or FITA Academy? * Are there any better alternatives in Chennai? I want to learn real-world projects and build skills that can help me get better opportunities. I'm 2.5 years into my career and don't want to make the wrong decision at this stage. Any guidance, personal experiences really help full for me. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! submitted by /u/Best-Quantity-4749 [link] [留言]

I build a security platform. Last night I stopped adding features and did something less fun and more honest: I sat down to make every capability prove it actually works — end to end, with real data, demanding a real pass or fail. "It ran" is not a pass. A page that renders is not a feature. A green checkmark is a claim, not evidence. So I went capability by capability and tried to break each one. I found four real bugs and one of them was a gut-punch: a whole detection engine that was wired into the UI, unit-tested, and never actually ran in production. Here's how the night went. The rule: drive it, don't admire it My method was boring on purpose. For each capability: Feed it real input through the real entry point (CLI or API), not a test fixture. Check the data actually landed (query the DB, don't trust the success message). Feed it a malicious input and a benign input — it has to fire on one and stay quiet on the other. The detection engine passed cleanly. I threw a PsExec process event at it and it lit up: $ zds-core detection eval --event '{"event_type":"process_create","process_name":"psexec.exe"}' 1 alert ( s ) : [ high] PsExec Execution — ( matched: map[process_name:psexec.exe] ) A wevtutil cl Security event tripped a critical "Log Clearing" rule. A plain notepad.exe matched nothing. Good — it detects, and it doesn't cry wolf. (Small UX papercut I fixed while I was there: if you forgot the event_type field, the engine silently matched nothing and printed "no rules matched" — which reads exactly like "you're safe." Now it warns you that the event can't match any rule. Silence that looks like safety is the most dangerous output a security tool can produce.) The one that hurt: ITDR Identity Threat Detection and Response. The engine has detectors for impossible travel, credential spraying, brute force, privilege escalation. All unit-tested. All green. I ran the real flow: POST two login events for one user — New York, then London thirty minutes later. That's ~5

15 years ago Akamai was the CDN network every tv station was using to distribute their content on, but from what I can remember they were also crazy expensive. Nowadays I still noticed that most major companies use Akamai but with strong competition from AWS. Did Akamai became more price friendly or did AWS become to have to same amount of local nodes? submitted by /u/Sure-Guest1588 [link] [留言]

Submission Template Challenge: Build With Hermes Agent Project: CompliScore AI compliance health checks for Indian startups Repo/live-demo: https://github.com/nehaprasad-dev/hermes-scout What I built CompliScore gives Indian startup founders a compliance score out of 100 in under a minute - overdue GST filings, MCA returns, penalty exposure, and a plain-English action plan. The upgrade for this challenge: I replaced the one-shot Groq summary with a Hermes Agent reasoning loop that plans an investigation, calls deterministic compliance tools, and writes a prioritized report - with a collapsible agent trace so judges can see the agentic work. Why an agent loop fits here Compliance analysis is conditional. A company with overdue GST needs a filing-calendar deep dive; one with active notices needs notice triage; a clean company needs a light touch. A single prompt guesses all of this at once. An agent that calls tools based on what it finds produces tighter, grounded reports. Hermes Agent integration Scan → computeHealth (deterministic score) → Hermes Agent loop (plan → tool calls → report) → agent trace in UI ↓ on failure Groq one-shot → static fallback Four tools exposed to Hermes (scores never hallucinated): Tool Purpose score_company Canonical score, risk level, pending tasks estimate_penalty GST / MCA / notice penalty breakdown filing_calendar GSTR-3B, GSTR-1, MCA deadlines (90-day horizon) classify_notices Severity labels for pending government notices The agent runs over Hermes's OpenAI-compatible /chat/completions API with function calling — self-hostable via vLLM, LM Studio, Ollama, etc. Transparency: Every successful agent run returns an agentTrace — plan steps, tool names, compact result previews — rendered in a collapsible panel under the AI action plan. Reliability: Three-tier fallback (Hermes → Groq → static). Scans never break. Tech stack Next.js 16 (App Router), TypeScript, Tailwind v4 Hermes Agent (OpenAI-compatible tool-calling loop) Groq fallback ( ll