标签：#dev

When I first started programming, I thought the best developers had one superpower. They remembered everything. Every function. Every method. Every API. Every piece of syntax. So I spent hours trying to memorize things. JavaScript methods. SQL queries. Regex. CSS properties. I thought that would make me valuable. I was wrong. The Day Everything Changed One day I watched a senior developer solve a difficult production issue. They opened Google. They opened the documentation. They searched Stack Overflow. They experimented. They tested. They failed. Then they fixed it. That's when I realized something. They weren't valuable because they remembered everything. They were valuable because they knew how to solve problems. Google Doesn't Make You Less of a Developer For a long time I felt guilty every time I searched for something. "Real developers shouldn't need Google." That's what I believed. Then I realized... Even experienced engineers search for documentation every day. Not because they're bad. Because technology changes constantly. Nobody remembers every detail. Syntax Is Temporary Think about the last five years. How many frameworks have changed? How many libraries disappeared? How many APIs were deprecated? Technology moves fast. Problem-solving doesn't. If you know how to think... You can learn any syntax. Companies Don't Hire Human Compilers Nobody pays you because you know where to put a semicolon. Nobody promotes you because you memorized every React hook. Companies pay developers who can: understand problems communicate clearly debug effectively make good decisions work with people deliver reliable software Those skills don't disappear when a framework becomes outdated. The Questions That Matter Instead of asking: "Do I know this syntax?" I started asking: Can I understand the problem? Can I break it into smaller pieces? Can I explain my thinking? Can I find reliable information quickly? Can I learn something new when I need it? Those questions changed the wa

SokoFlow Build Log — Month 1 of 4 Last semester I set out on a new strategic plan to level up my software development skills through deliberate, project-based learning. That work produced one of the most ambitious things I've built so far: Sim-Pesa , a local-first transactional appliance that lets developers working in the M-Pesa ecosystem test and simulate STK Push workflows entirely on their own machines, without depending on the Daraja sandbox. I documented that build in 16 weekly posts, which you can find here . This semester, the focus shifts — from fintech foundations to cloud-native integration and real-world systems. The flagship project is SokoFlow , a conversational ERP for small Kenyan shopkeepers to track inventory and record sales entirely through WhatsApp chat. No app to download, no training session required — just natural language. Where Sim-Pesa lived in a controlled, predictable transactional world, SokoFlow steps into the mess of cloud-native reality: third-party API failures, webhook signature verification, the statelessness of HTTP, and container orchestration. The target audience shifts too — Kenyan SMEs operating on infrastructure that is often unreliable by design, not by exception. It's an ambitious project, but the goal was always to learn as much as possible from it. With the plan in place, I got to work. 1. The Vision of a Headless ERP The first real question I had to answer before writing a line of code: what does "headless" actually mean? Headless architecture decouples the frontend — the "head," or user interface — from the backend, the "body" that holds the data and business logic. A conventional ERP bundles both: backend plus a dashboard or UI on top. A headless ERP, by contrast, is just the engine. The brain. There's no built-in screen. So how do users interact with a system that has no interface of its own? SokoFlow doesn't actually care. It could be: WhatsApp SMS A web app A mobile app A voice assistant In this case, the "frontend

Every WordPress developer knows the feeling. A host emails: "PHP 7.4 reaches end of life — we're moving you to 8.x." Or you finally want the performance and security of PHP 8.4. You stage it, click upgrade, and… white screen. Somewhere in the 40 plugins and 3 themes on the site, something called a function PHP removed years ago — and now the whole site is down. The frustrating part: the broken code is almost never yours. It's buried in third-party plugins and themes you didn't write and can't easily read. So how do you find out what breaks before you upgrade, instead of after? This post walks through exactly that, using an open-source tool called Pressready . Why "just test it on staging" isn't enough Staging tells you that something broke, rarely what or where — and only for the code paths you happen to exercise. A fatal in an admin screen or a checkout edge case you didn't click won't surface until a real user hits it. You need something that reads all the code statically and reports every risky symbol, whether or not that path runs during your manual test. That's a job for static analysis across the whole stack. Two kinds of "breakage": PHP and WordPress Upgrades break sites along two axes, and a good audit covers both: The PHP axis — language features that get removed (e.g. create_function() is gone in PHP 8.0, each() in 8.0) or change behaviour between versions. The WordPress axis — core APIs that WordPress deprecates or removes from one release to the next. Pressready checks both in a single pass: it runs PHPCompatibility for the PHP axis and a custom PHP_CodeSniffer sniff — driven by a generated dataset of WordPress core deprecations — for the WordPress axis. Install it (pick whatever fits your setup) No Composer in the project? Use the standalone PHAR or Docker: # Standalone PHAR — single self-contained file, just needs PHP curl -L https://github.com/itzmekhokan/pressready/releases/latest/download/pressready.phar -o pressready.phar chmod +x pressready.phar #

There's a paradox nobody wants to say out loud: the same frameworks companies pick because they're "enterprise-ready," "scalable," and "industry standard" are, for an LLM writing code, a minefield. Angular , React with its whole ecosystem, Nx with its monorepos: these are powerful tools, built by humans to coordinate teams of humans on massive codebases. And for that purpose, they're often the right choice — if your primary constraint is coordinating hundreds of engineers over a decade, the conventions and tooling of an established framework earn their keep. But there's a second actor in the room now. When the one writing the code is an AI, the very traits that make these frameworks "robust" turn into pure friction. The argument I'm making isn't "Angular and React are obsolete." It's narrower: we've historically optimized software architecture for human cognition, and LLMs introduce a different cost model that may favor simpler, more deterministic architectures — at least in some domains. Let's break down why, in three points. 1. The Token Tax (and the Cognitive Bottleneck) An LLM doesn't "understand" code the way we do — it processes it token by token, and every token costs something: money, latency, and context window that could otherwise be spent reasoning about the actual problem. Try asking an AI to generate a simple input form in a typical Angular/Nx context. To do it "properly" it has to: create the component (separate .ts , .html , .css files) declare the @Component with all its metadata import and wire up the right modules possibly touch an NgModule or a standalone-components config navigate 4-5 folder levels inside a typical Nx structure ( apps/ , libs/ , feature-x/ , data-access/ , ui/ ...) All of this before writing a single line of actual logic. That's architectural complexity that, for a human, pays for itself over time thanks to tooling, autocomplete, and internalized conventions. For an LLM generating text sequentially, it's a tax paid on every singl

Microsoft has announced the limited public preview of Copilot Autofix for GitHub Advanced Security for Azure DevOps, extending AI-powered vulnerability remediation to teams using Azure Repos. By Craig Risi

TL;DR Anthropic recently published When AI Builds Itself, an essay explaining how AI is...

I had a lot of work to get through, and for once I didn't want to crawl through it one ticket at a...

Introduction I keep hearing the term loop engineering. It's all over my feed, every AI...

Remember when Artificial Intelligence (AI) felt like something from a science fiction movie? Well, it's not just for movies anymore! AI is here, and it's rapidly changing how businesses of all sizes operate. From making customers happier to solving tricky problems faster, AI is becoming a vital tool for success. But how exactly is AI making such a big difference? Many business owners wonder about the real-world uses of AI. That's why we've put together this comprehensive guide. We're going to explore 50 specific ways AI development is transforming modern businesses, helping them work smarter, grow faster, and serve their customers better. Get ready to see how AI isn't just a buzzword, but a powerful engine driving real change in the business world! Boosting Customer Service & Experience (CX) (1-10) AI is making customer interactions smoother, faster, and more personal. Instant Customer Support (Chatbots): AI-powered chatbots answer common questions 24/7, so customers get help right away. Personalized Recommendations: AI suggests products or services customers might like, based on their past choices, making shopping feel more personal. Faster Problem Solving: AI helps support agents quickly find solutions by sifting through information. Predicting Customer Needs: AI can guess what a customer might want or need before they even ask, allowing businesses to be proactive. Voice Assistants for Support: AI voice assistants can handle basic customer calls, freeing up human agents for more complex issues. Sentiment Analysis: AI understands how customers feel about a product or service by analyzing their feedback (reviews, social media posts). Automated Email Responses: AI can draft quick, helpful replies to common customer email inquiries. Targeted Customer Outreach: AI helps businesses send the right message to the right customer at the right time. Improved Loyalty Programs: AI personalizes rewards and offers, making customers feel more valued and increasing their loyalty.

Stop Writing the Same Laravel Boilerplate: Generate a Complete Module with One Artisan Command Every Laravel developer has experienced this. You start implementing a new feature and immediately create the same files you've created dozens of times before: Model Migration Repository Service Form Request API Resource Policy Filter Status Enum Feature Tests Unit Tests Swagger/OpenAPI annotations The process is repetitive, time-consuming, and easy to get wrong. The Problem While Laravel provides excellent generators, building a production-ready API module still requires running many Artisan commands and wiring everything together manually. For large projects following Repository and Service Layer architectures, this becomes even more repetitive. The Solution I built Laravel Base , an open-source package that generates an entire production-ready module from a single command. php artisan make:module Product The generated module includes: ✅ Model ✅ Migration ✅ Repository Pattern ✅ Service Layer ✅ Form Requests ✅ API Resources ✅ Filters & Pagination ✅ Policies ✅ Status Enums ✅ Swagger/OpenAPI annotations ✅ Feature Tests ✅ Unit Tests Modern Development Experience The package is actively maintained and includes: Laravel 10–13 support PHP 8.1–8.4 compatibility GitHub Actions CI PHPStan static analysis Laravel Pint code style Automated releases Repository automation Why I Built It After working on multiple Laravel projects, I noticed I was spending too much time generating the same project structure instead of focusing on business logic. I wanted a tool that lets developers start implementing features immediately rather than setting up folders and classes. Feedback Welcome Laravel Base is open source, and I'd love to hear your thoughts. GitHub Repository: https://github.com/MuhammedMSalama/LaravelBase Packagist: https://packagist.org/packages/muhammedsalama/laravel-base The package was recently featured by Laravel News, and I'm continuing to improve it based on community feedbac

For twenty years, "ranking" meant one thing: get indexed, get crawled, get a position on a results page. Every Shopify store's SEO checklist was built around that single goal. Sitemap submitted, meta tags filled in, Core Web Vitals green, done. That checklist still matters. It's also no longer sufficient, and most stores haven't noticed yet. Two different systems, two different jobs Google's index and an LLM's answer engine are not the same kind of system, even though they both "read" your store. A search index is a retrieval system. It crawls a page, tokenizes the content, stores it, and matches it against a query at request time. Ranking is a function of relevance signals backlinks, click-through behavior, freshness, page experience. The unit of output is a list of links. The user does the synthesis. An LLM-based answer engine is a generation system. When someone asks ChatGPT, Perplexity, or Claude "what's a good Shopify store for sustainable activewear," the model isn't returning a ranked list of crawled pages. It's generating a single answer, and it decides which brands to name in that answer based on which entities it has high confidence are real, relevant, and well-attested across multiple sources. The unit of output is a sentence. The model does the synthesis, and your store either gets a mention in that sentence or it doesn't. This is the gap. A store can be fully indexed sitemap clean, every product page crawlable, ranking on page one for its category and still never get named in an AI-generated answer. Indexing is a necessary condition for citation. It is not a sufficient one. What "citable" actually requires Citation in an LLM context isn't about keyword matching. It's closer to reputation modeling. Three things tend to separate stores that get cited from stores that don't: Entity consistency across the web. The model needs to resolve "your brand" as a single, stable entity across multiple independent sources your own site, marketplaces, press mentions, r

Introduction As applications grow, traditional relational databases such as MySQL may struggle with analytical workloads involving millions of records and complex aggregations. While MySQL excels at Online Transaction Processing (OLTP), ClickHouse® is purpose-built for Online Analytical Processing (OLAP), enabling lightning-fast analytical queries on massive datasets. Migrating data from MySQL to ClickHouse® allows organizations to build high-performance reporting systems, dashboards, and real-time analytics without impacting transactional workloads. In this guide, you'll learn several approaches to migrate data from MySQL to ClickHouse®, along with their advantages, limitations, and ideal use cases. Why Migrate from MySQL to ClickHouse®? MySQL and ClickHouse® are designed for different workloads. Feature MySQL ClickHouse® Storage Model Row-based Columnar Best For Transactions (OLTP) Analytics (OLAP) Query Speed Fast for row lookups Extremely fast for large scans Aggregation Performance Moderate Extremely fast Scalability Primarily Vertical Optimized for analytical scaling Typical Use Cases Applications and transactional systems Reporting, dashboards, and analytics Migrating from MySQL to ClickHouse® makes sense when: Analytical queries are becoming slow in MySQL. You need real-time dashboards over large datasets. Reporting queries are impacting your production database. You regularly process millions or billions of rows. Migration Architecture MySQL │ ▼ Export / Synchronization │ ▼ Data Transformation │ ▼ ClickHouse® │ ▼ Dashboards / Analytics Migration Methods There are multiple ways to migrate data depending on your requirements. Method 1: CSV Export and Import (Recommended for Beginners) This is the simplest approach for performing a one-time migration of historical data. Step 1: Export Data from MySQL Run the following command inside MySQL: SELECT * INTO OUTFILE '/tmp/employees.csv' FIELDS TERMINATED BY ',' ENCLOSED BY '"' LINES TERMINATED BY ' \n ' FROM employ

A few months ago I noticed something annoying about how I worked: I was spending more time collecting information than actually thinking about it. The pattern was always the same. Open a search engine, open a dozen tabs, skim past the SEO filler and cookie banners, copy the paragraphs that actually mattered into a doc, paste the whole mess into an LLM and ask it to make sense of things. Then, a week later, do it again because whatever I was tracking had changed. At some point I stopped asking "how do I do this faster" and started asking why I was doing it by hand at all. Why the obvious answers didn't work ChatGPT and Perplexity are fine for a single question. They're worse at the part I actually needed help with, which was repetition: running the same research loop on a schedule, keeping a record of what changed, and getting a notification when it did. Neither tool is built to sit in the background and check on a topic for you. Plain scraping scripts have the opposite problem. They get you raw HTML, not understanding. You still have to strip out nav bars and footers by hand, and the moment you point one at a list-style page like Hacker News instead of a blog post, it falls apart. And bookmarking is just deferring the problem. A folder of forty saved links isn't research, it's homework you haven't done yet. I wanted something in between: automated enough to skip the tab-hoarding, but still producing something I could read and trust, not just a black-box answer. So I built Focal Harvest It's a modular CLI that runs the whole research loop, search, scrape, clean, synthesize, report, on its own, and stays lightweight enough to run on a laptop with no GPU and no database. A single run looks like this: you give it a topic and a focus area (what you specifically want answered), it searches the web, pulls and cleans the pages, synthesizes a report, and writes it to disk. There's also a loop mode, so the same query can re-run every few hours and ping you on Discord or Teleg

React useIntersectionObserver Hook: Lazy Load & Detect Visibility (2026) You want to load an image only when it scrolls near the viewport. Or fire an analytics event the first time a card is actually seen . Or trigger "load more" when the user reaches the bottom of a list. Every one of these is the same question — is this element on screen yet? — and for years the answer was a scroll listener that fired hundreds of times a second, re-read getBoundingClientRect() on each tick, and still managed to miss the edge cases. IntersectionObserver is the browser API that answers that question correctly, asynchronously, and off the main thread. useIntersectionObserver is the hook that wires it into React without the useEffect / useRef /cleanup boilerplate — and without the leak-on-unmount and stale-closure bugs the hand-rolled version always ships. This post covers the real @reactuses/core API, the three patterns you'll actually reach for, and how to tune threshold , rootMargin , and root . SSR-safe and typed. Why Not Just Use a Scroll Listener? The old way to know whether an element was visible looked like this: listen to scroll , and on every event measure the element against the viewport. useEffect (() => { function onScroll () { const rect = el . getBoundingClientRect (); if ( rect . top < window . innerHeight ) { setVisible ( true ); } } window . addEventListener ( ' scroll ' , onScroll ); return () => window . removeEventListener ( ' scroll ' , onScroll ); }, []); This has two problems baked in. First, scroll fires on the main thread, dozens of times per second, and getBoundingClientRect() forces a synchronous layout each time — that's exactly the recipe for janky scrolling. Second, it only catches elements crossing the viewport ; the moment your scroll happens inside a container, you're re-deriving geometry by hand. IntersectionObserver flips the model. You hand the browser a target and a threshold, and it tells you — asynchronously, batched, off the scroll path — when

A few months ago I was applying for jobs and stumbled across Jobscan. It looked exactly what I needed — paste your resume, paste the job description, see how well you match. Then I saw the price. $49.95/month. As a student, that's a week of groceries. I closed the tab. But the problem didn't go away. I kept wondering — why is my resume getting rejected before a human even reads it? ATS systems are filtering people out and nobody tells you why. So I built ClearScan. What it does: Scans your resume against a job description. Shows exactly which keywords you're missing. Checks ATS compatibility across 5 platforms (Workday, Taleo, Greenhouse, Lever, iCIMS). Scores your bullet points using STAR format analysis. Gives you a transparent breakdown — you can see why you got the score you did. That last part matters to me a lot. Most tools just give you a number. ClearScan shows you the math. Where it stands: Launched today. First paying customers already. Free tier gives you 2 scans/month — enough to feel the product before deciding. Pricing starts at €3.99/month. Built for students, priced for students. Live at clearscan.fyi — would genuinely love your feedback, especially from developers who've dealt with ATS hell themselves.

I had a bug last month that took most of a Saturday to find. A support bot we shipped started promising refund timelines that didn't match policy. Customer complaints, frantic Slack messages, the usual. The prompt had changed three weeks earlier. Nobody could remember why. Git blame pointed to a one-line edit inside a 200-line SYSTEM_PROMPT constant. No PR description, no diff worth reading. That's when I knew I'd been writing prompts wrong for the last two years. PromptOT - Prompt Management Platform Compose prompts from typed blocks, version safely, and deliver to your apps via API. The prompt management platform built for AI engineering teams. promptot.com Prompts are code, but we treat them like Notion docs A typical system prompt for anything useful crams five things into one string: You are a friendly support agent for Acme. Use this knowledge: {{kb}}. Follow escalation rules. Never share internal ticket IDs. Reply in plain text, two to four paragraphs. That's a role, context, instructions, guardrails, and an output format all jammed together. When the PM wants to soften the tone, they're editing the same string an engineer uses to update the knowledge base. When security adds a guardrail, it lands inches from the response format. One bad edit and every reply ships broken. We wouldn't write code this way. So why are prompts always a 200-line const somewhere in lib/ ? What I built PromptOT is a prompt management platform. The core idea is small: typed blocks instead of flat strings. You break a prompt into pieces. Each piece has a type — role, context, instructions, guardrails, output_format, custom. Each one is independently editable, can be toggled on or off, and has its own version history. The compiler joins them into a single prompt string at delivery time. Block 1 — role : " You are a support agent for Acme..." Block 2 — context : " Knowledge base: {{kb}}..." Block 3 — instructions : " 1. Acknowledge the issue..." Block 4 — guardrails : " Never share inte

OpenAI usage page, check spend. Anthropic console, check spend. Add it up in my head. Close both...

An AI gateway is the control point between your applications and the LLMs they call. It’s where cost, security, reliability, and governance get managed across every model and provider at once. Skip it, and AI sprawl quietly turns into runaway spend, security gaps, and outages you didn’t see coming. Here’s why a gateway has become core infrastructure. Almost nobody adopts AI in a tidy, planned way. One team ships a support chatbot on OpenAI. Another prototypes on Anthropic. A third fine-tunes an open model on its own GPUs because the latency was better. A year later you’ve got dozens of applications, several providers, API keys scattered across repos, and no single answer to a simple question: what are we spending, and what data are we sending where? That’s the gap an AI gateway fills. It sits between your applications and the models, and it turns fragmented, ungoverned access into something you can actually manage. The reason organizations end up needing one is straightforward — production AI creates problems that application code was never designed to solve. Let’s walk through them. The problems an AI gateway solves Cost that’s invisible until the invoice arrives LLM spend is uniquely easy to blow up. A retry bug, an agent stuck in a loop, an unbounded batch job — any of these can multiply tokens overnight. And when every team holds its own provider key, finance gets one large number with no story behind it. A gateway changes that. It enforces budgets and rate limits per user, team, and application, tracks token spend as it happens, and attributes every dollar to a cost center. TrueFoundry, for instance, lets platform teams set hard caps so a single bad deploy can’t drain the AI budget. The detail matters because cost control only works if it’s enforced before the spend, not discovered after it. Security and credential sprawl Without a gateway, provider keys end up hardcoded in notebooks, committed to repos, and copied onto laptops. There’s no clean way to rotate t

Hey everyone 👋 If you run batch jobs, data pipelines, or any kind of AI and ML training on Kubernetes, you have probably hit this wall. Kubernetes is fantastic at deciding WHERE a pod should run, but it is surprisingly clueless about WHEN a job should start. 😅 You submit ten jobs, the cluster fills up, and the rest just sit there as Pending. No real queue, no priority, no fairness between teams. One noisy team can eat all your expensive nodes while everyone else waits. 🥲 That is exactly the gap Kueue fills, and today I want to walk you through it with a pile of hands on examples you can run on any cluster, even your homelab. 🏡 👉 Key takeaway up front: Kueue is a job level manager that holds your jobs in a real queue and only admits them when there is enough quota to actually run them. 🧪 Everything in this guide was tested against Kueue v0.18.1 using the v1beta2 API. I pinned every command and manifest to that version so you do not get surprised by API drift. 📋 What we will cover ✅ Why Kubernetes needs a queue ✅ The building blocks in plain language ✅ Installing Kueue ✅ Setting up quota with a ResourceFlavor, a ClusterQueue, and a LocalQueue ✅ Submitting a Job and watching it get queued and admitted ✅ Priority based admission ✅ Partial admission and elastic jobs ✅ Multiple resource flavors for x86 and arm ✅ Fair sharing between teams with cohorts ✅ Dedicated quota with a shared fallback ✅ Queueing a plain Pod ✅ Why this matters a lot for GPUs and your cloud bill 🤔 Why Kubernetes needs a queue Native Kubernetes scheduling is pod centric. The scheduler looks at one pod at a time and tries to place it. That works great for long running services. Batch workloads are different. They have a beginning and an end, they often need a fixed chunk of capacity, and they compete with other teams for the same nodes. Without a queueing layer you get: ✅ Jobs that fail or stay Pending when resources are tight ✅ No quota governance, so one team can starve the others ✅ No admission prio

Traditional content pages are often designed for a linear reader. The introduction sets context, the middle develops the idea, and the conclusion ties everything together. AI retrieval does not always work that way. A system may identify smaller content units, pull the most relevant section, compare it with other sources, and use that fragment to support an answer. The full page still matters, but the retrievable blocks inside the page matter just as much. A useful Tumblr post explains the idea in simple terms: https://www.tumblr.com/digitalisedsoul/820825642809573376/ai-does-not-read-your-content-like-a-human?source=share For Dev Community readers, the pattern is familiar. Poorly structured inputs lead to weaker outputs. If content is dense, vague, or dependent on surrounding paragraphs, it becomes harder to extract and reuse. If content is modular, clear, and properly scoped, retrieval becomes easier. Marketing teams can learn a lot from this. A strong content page should behave like a set of well labelled components. Each section should answer a specific question. Headings should be descriptive, not decorative. Paragraphs should avoid vague references such as the above point or this approach when the section may be read independently. Definitions should appear close to the terms they explain. Examples should include enough context to stand alone. Proof should be written as text, not only displayed as graphics. Internal links should connect related concepts in a way that helps both readers and systems understand the topic map. A page about AI search visibility, for example, should not only include one broad explanation. It should break the topic into useful blocks: what AI visibility means, why AI systems retrieve passages, how source trust works, what makes content reusable, and how brands should measure answer presence. Each block becomes a possible answer unit. That structure does not weaken the reader experience. It improves it. Developers, marketers, and busi