标签：#t

Most API teams treat the contract as an afterthought: write code, generate a spec, then watch the two drift apart. Git-native API design reverses that flow. You treat the API contract as source code, version it in Git, and review every change the same way you review application logic. Try Apidog today This guide focuses on implementation discipline, not a single tool. You’ll design contracts in branches, review them in pull requests, and turn a committed spec into mocks, tests, and docs. The goal is simple: your Git history should also be your API history. If you already know what Spec-First tooling looks like and want the product walkthrough, read the companion piece on the git-native API workflow . This article stays focused on practice. What “git-native” means for API work Git-native means your API definition lives in your repository as a plain text file. Not in a proprietary cloud database. Not behind a vendor login. A .yaml or .json file sits next to your code and is tracked by the same version control system your team already uses. In many cloud-locked API design tools, the contract lives in the vendor’s backend. You edit through a web UI, and your repository only contains an export. That export can become stale, and your Git history no longer explains how the API evolved. The git-native model inverts that relationship: The file in main is the contract. Any GUI is a view onto that file. Branches, commits, pull requests, blame, and rollback all apply to your API surface. Mocks, docs, tests, and generated clients derive from the committed spec. A git-native setup has three core properties: The spec is a text file in the repo. Changes flow through normal Git operations: branch, commit, PR, merge. Downstream artifacts derive from the committed file, not from a separate database. Why design and develop APIs in Git You already trust Git with your code. Your API contract deserves the same treatment. 1. History When someone asks, “When did we add the cursor pagination

Multiplayer markdown for you, your team, and your agents. Discussion | Link

TL;DR Day 2 of AI Native DevCon shifted from agent capability to operating discipline. The strongest sessions focused on how teams can run AI-native delivery with clearer context pipelines, measurable agent behavior, safer execution boundaries, and better organizational ownership. The scale showed up in the numbers too. Across the two days, DevCon brought together 650+ in-person registrations, around 2,000 online registrations, and a packed mix of sessions, workshops, hallway conversations, and practical lessons. Day 2 leaned into workshops. That shift mattered because the second day was less about proving agents can do useful work and more about showing how teams can make that work repeatable. Hey there, welcome back. Rohan Sharma here again continuing the devcon series. Day 1 gave us the framing, including Guy Podjarny ’s core point that skills should be treated like real software assets. Day 2 picked up from there and moved into the operating details. Once agents are inside daily engineering work, platform and product teams need to decide what changes first, who owns those changes, and how the results are measured. Talks that shaped Day 2 Harness engineering beyond code Marc Sloan from Tessl focused on the next gap many teams are hitting. Code context is increasingly structured, but product and design context still lives in external systems such as Figma, Notion, and Linear. Pulling that context live can reduce staleness, but it introduces drift in evals, versioning, and reproducibility. The practical lesson was to stop treating external product and design context as random reference material. Teams need a defined layer between the repository and those external systems, with clear versioning so evaluations can be replayed against known context snapshots. Without that, agents can produce work that looks technically correct while missing the product constraint that actually mattered. That is a very expensive kind of almost-right. From vibes to metrics Simon Obstbau

If you've ever built a REST API with Express, you've probably felt it. Middleware registration, type definitions, body parser setup, connecting Joi or Zod... the structure is simple, but the boilerplate is excessive. When I first saw Hono, I was skeptical. "Another Express clone," I thought. That changed when I actually ran it. Bottom line: Hono v4 is more than just lightweight and fast. TypeScript type inference flows naturally all the way to route handlers. Zod validation connects via a single official package. On Bun, response times are noticeably faster than Express. Everything in this post is based on what I ran in a sandbox in June 2026. Why Hono — Compared to Express and Fastify Understanding where Hono fits means answering three questions. Bundle size : Hono v4 core is about 12KB. Express is 58KB, Fastify is 77KB. The gap might not sound dramatic, but in edge environments like Cloudflare Workers or Deno Deploy, bundle size directly affects cold start time. Edge functions sometimes initialize a new runtime per request — smaller means faster first response. Runtime compatibility : Express is Node.js-only. Fastify targets Node.js by default. Hono was designed from the start to "run anywhere." The same code deploys to Bun, Deno, Cloudflare Workers, Node.js, and AWS Lambda Edge. TypeScript support : Express requires @types/express as a separate install, and properties added to req via middleware don't get type inference. Hono is written in TypeScript from the ground up, and the Hono<{ Bindings: Env; Variables: Variables }> generic gives you type-safe access to environment variables and middleware state. I'm not saying Hono is the right choice for every situation. If your team is deeply invested in Express, or you need a mature plugin ecosystem, there's no compelling reason to switch. But if edge deployment is the goal, or you want type safety from day one, Hono is the most convincing TypeScript API framework right now. Installation and First Server — Response in

Node.js will change its release schedule starting with version 27 in October 2026, moving from two major releases per year to one. All releases will become Long-Term Support (LTS), removing the distinction between odd and even versions. An Alpha channel for early testing will also be introduced. This decision addresses maintenance challenges and aims to align with user needs. By Daniel Curtis

Introduction: The Question of Relevance Imagine you’re a college student, fresh off mastering pandas , and you’re eyeing the freelancing market for data cleaning and automation gigs. You’ve heard of openpyxl , but as you dig deeper, you hit a wall: every resource seems to peg it as a relic for handling 2010 Excel sheets . That’s it. No modern use cases, no integration with cutting-edge tools, just a dusty library stuck in the past. So, you pause. Is openpyxl still relevant in 2023, or is it a dead end for someone trying to build a competitive freelancing portfolio? This dilemma isn’t just about openpyxl—it’s about the mechanism of perception in tech. When a tool is associated with outdated formats, its capabilities are often misinterpreted or overlooked . Openpyxl’s documentation and community discourse rarely highlight its modern applications, leaving newcomers like you to assume it’s obsolete. But here’s the catch: openpyxl isn’t just a 2010 Excel handler. It’s a low-level Excel manipulator that, when paired with libraries like pandas and numpy, can handle complex tasks that these libraries alone can’t. The problem isn’t openpyxl’s functionality—it’s the information gap between its perceived and actual utility. The stakes are clear: if you dismiss openpyxl as outdated, you risk missing out on a tool that could complement your pandas and numpy skills , making your freelancing services more efficient and versatile. But if you invest time in it without understanding its modern applications, you might waste effort on a tool that doesn’t align with current demands. The question isn’t whether openpyxl is relevant—it’s whether you’re looking at it through the right lens. In this investigation, we’ll dissect openpyxl’s role in 2023 freelancing, addressing its perceived limitations and uncovering its hidden strengths. By the end, you’ll have a clear rule for deciding whether to include it in your toolkit: If your freelancing gigs involve Excel-specific tasks that pandas ca

AI Coding Agents in 2026: From Pair Programming to Autonomous Teams Slug: ai-coding-agents-2026-stack-comparison 1. The Three Categories That Actually Matter The 2024‑2025 hype cycle treated every AI coding tool as a single‑dimensional “best‑of‑list.” 2026 data shows that professional developers now average 2.4 tools per workflow (Stack Overflow Survey 2025). The real decision is architectural: Layer Goal Typical Agent Type Line‑level editing Speed, low latency Editor assistants Repo‑level planning Context depth, multi‑file changes Autonomous agents Enterprise governance Isolation, audit, CI/CD integration Platform agents Choosing a “one best tool” ignores the trade‑off between context window size (how many tokens the model can see) and execution speed (how fast the tool returns a suggestion). A narrow‑window editor assistant excels at instant autocomplete, while a wide‑window autonomous agent can rewrite an entire microservice in a single run. The three‑tier framework aligns the tool’s strengths with the architectural layer where they matter most. 2. Tier 1: Editor Assistants — Speed at the Line Level Tool Market Position Key Feature (2026) Pricing (per developer) Cursor $500 M+ ARR, fastest growth in Q1 2026 Parallel agents update git worktrees; 2‑second latency on 8‑core laptops $15 /mo (individual) – $120 /mo (team) GitHub Copilot 4.7 M paid subscriptions, 75 % YoY growth Agent Mode with multi‑agent workflows; deep VS Code integration $10 /mo (individual) – $100 /mo (enterprise) Windsurf 1.2 M active users, strong UI polish Real‑time code‑style enforcement; limited to 4‑file context Free tier up to 5 k lines, $30 /mo premium Tabnine Enterprise‑only after 2026 pivot Air‑gapped deployment; NVIDIA Nemotron 4‑bit models for on‑prem inference $200 /mo per seat (minimum 10 seats) When to choose each Cursor – prioritize raw typing speed and git‑aware suggestions. Ideal for startups that need rapid iteration without heavy IDE lock‑in. Copilot – best for teams already on

Here's a trace that reset how I think about evaluating tool-calling agents. An agent tries to book a flight. It calls search_flights with departure_date="next Friday" . The endpoint expected an ISO date, so it returns a 400 . The agent retries the same string four times, then apologizes to the user and gives up. Now the part that actually bothered me. Tool selection was correct. The model picked the right function out of a registry of 28. My tool-selection accuracy logged a clean 1.0 . The aggregate task-completion logged a 0 . And neither number told me which of three things broke: the argument was wrong, the model never read the 400 body, or the retry policy looped on the same input. My eval wasn't wrong. It was asking the wrong question. What "tool-call accuracy" actually grades If the only thing you measure is did the agent call the right tool , you're testing intent, not execution. Tool selection is necessary, not sufficient. It passes the moment the right function name shows up in the trace, completely blind to whether the arguments were garbage, whether the model read what came back, or whether it recovered from the 400 . That's the gap. The metric checks that the agent started the right way. Production needs to know whether it finished the right way. The reframe: it's four eval problems, not one The thing I had to internalize is that tool-calling eval is four problems stacked, each with its own root cause: Tool selection , right tool, or correctly no tool Argument extraction , schema-valid and semantically correct Result utilization , did it actually use what the tool returned Error recovery , did it retry, fall back, or escalate Score them separately and "the agent failed" collapses into "the argument extractor regressed on date strings on the flight-booking path." One bisect instead of three days. What I rebuilt Layer 1: Tool selection (with the bucket everyone drops) F1 on the tool name, so a 28-tool registry doesn't hide a regression on one rare endpoint

I run multiple Claude Code sessions all day — one per feature, one per service, sometimes five at once. Every session was asking me for permission in its own terminal. I'd miss requests buried in a background tab. I'd switch windows mid-thought just to approve a git status . I'd lose context constantly. And there was no single place to see what Claude was doing across all of them. So I built Gatekeeper — a TUI daemon that intercepts every Claude Code tool call and routes it to one unified approval dashboard. The dashboard Three panes, one terminal: Left — all active Claude sessions, with status badges: [auto] means auto-approve is on, [linked] means it's wired to a terminal window Middle — pending permission requests with an age timer so you know what's been waiting longest Right — full request detail, danger warnings, and the numbered approval menu Every Claude Code tool call — Bash , Edit , Write , Agent — passes through a PreToolUse hook before executing. The hook connects to Gatekeeper's Unix socket, sends the request, and blocks. Gatekeeper shows it in the UI. When you decide, the answer travels back and Claude proceeds or stops. Approving requests The menu in the right pane mirrors Claude Code's own style: 1 Allow once 2 Always allow 3 Deny ↑ / ↓ moves the cursor, Enter confirms. Or just press 1 , 2 , 3 directly. A and D are quick shortcuts for allow/deny. Option 2 — always allow — is where it gets useful. Choosing it saves a persistent rule so the same request never surfaces again: Bash → saves the command pattern (e.g. npm run * ) to config Edit / Write → saves the directory to an allowlist Agent → enables auto-approve for that session The rule is written both to Gatekeeper's own config and to Claude Code's settings.json allowlist — so Claude Code itself won't prompt for it either. Auto-approve sessions Press A in the Sessions pane to mark a session as trusted. It shows [auto] — routine tool calls pass silently without appearing in the queue. But some things

Hand the same paired before/after dataset (n = 25) to ChatGPT five times. Same prompt: "These are the same subjects measured before and after an intervention. Did their scores change significantly?" Four of the five runs return p = 0.009 from a paired t-test. The fifth run does a Shapiro–Wilk normality check on the differences first, decides they're non-normal, switches to a Wilcoxon signed-rank test, and reports p = 0.000018 . All five reach the same conclusion (significant). But notice what happened: only one run out of five thought to check an assumption you'd want it to check. The other four skipped it. The choice of method — and the test statistic, and the p-value — depended on whether the LLM happened to run an assumption check that time. On borderline data, this is the difference between reject and don't reject. If you're using LLMs for exploratory data analysis on a weekend project, you might shrug. If you're using them for anything that gets cited, gets submitted to a regulator, or gets handed to a clinician, this is a problem. It's a known problem — Cui & Alexander (2026) documented exactly this kind of method-divergence empirically; AIRepr (Zeng et al., 2025) shows the same thing across reproducibility metrics. The current answer in the literature is to constrain the agent so its execution is replayable. But replayability fixes "did we run the same code." It doesn't fix "did we run the right analysis." I've spent the last two months building a different fix. The more interesting half is the architecture. Let me walk through it. The real problem isn't temperature The first reflex is "set temperature=0 ." It's not enough. temperature=0 doesn't make a tool-using agent deterministic across runs. Three reasons: Inference isn't bitwise deterministic, even at temperature=0. Production LLM serving batches requests dynamically, and the attention kernels aren't batch-invariant — so the same input produces different output tokens depending on what other requests it

Smart Lighting Protocol Showdown: Zigbee vs Matter vs BLE Mesh (2026) After deploying thousands of Zigbee smart lights through our manufacturing line at nexLAMP, and watching countless customers struggle with protocol selection, I decided to write this practical comparison. The Real Problem "My smart lights keep disconnecting! I think I chose the wrong protocol..." This is the #1 complaint I see on Reddit, Xiaohongshu, and Zhihu. The fix isn't a better router — it's choosing the right protocol from day one. Protocol Deep Dive Zigbee — The Workhorse Frequency : 2.4 GHz (separate from WiFi) Topology : Star + Mesh hybrid Max devices : 200+ per coordinator Latency : 50-200ms Cost/unit : ~$3.5-5.0 (Tuya Zigbee drivers) Why it wins for lighting: Each node is a repeater → self-healing mesh Ultra-low power → years on coin cell for sensors Mature ecosystem → Tuya, Hue, Aqara, Xiaomi all ship Zigbee The catch: You need a Zigbee gateway (~$15-20). This is the only upfront cost. BLE Mesh — The Budget Option Frequency : 2.4 GHz (shared with WiFi/BLE) Topology : Managed flood mesh Max devices : ~50 (practical limit ~30) Latency : 100-500ms (increases with node count) Cost/unit : ~$2.0-3.5 The flooding problem: Every command is broadcast to every node. With N nodes, you get O(N²) message propagation. Past 30 devices, you'll notice visible lag. Good for: Small apartments (≤ 6 lights), budget projects. Matter — The Future Transport : Thread (preferred) or WiFi Topology : Thread mesh (similar to Zigbee) Max devices : 250+ (theoretical) Latency : 30-150ms (Thread), variable (WiFi) Cost/unit : ~$7.0-11.0 (currently higher) Matter's promise is genuine cross-platform control. But in 2026: Pros: Native HomeKit, Alexa, Google Home support Thread mesh is excellent (when it works) IP-based → easier cloud integration Cons: Thread Border Routers aren't ubiquitous yet Advanced lighting features still evolving Premium pricing for early adoption Cost Analysis (20-Fixture Deployment) Protocol Driv

Hello Dev Community! 👋 It is officially Day 12 of my journey to master the MERN stack! Today, I wrapped up Lecture 3 of Apna College's JavaScript playlist with Shradha Didi, focusing on a fundamental data type we use every day: Strings . Before today, I thought strings were just plain text wrapped in quotes. Today, I learned how much power JavaScript gives us to manipulate, slice, and dynamically format text. 🧠 Key Learnings From JS Lecture 3 (Strings) I explored how JavaScript handles text strings and the built-in properties and methods that make text manipulation effortless: 1. Template Literals (The Ultimate Game Changer) Shradha Didi introduced Template Literals , which use backticks ( ` ) instead of standard quotes. This allows us to perform String Interpolation —embedding variables directly inside a string using ${variable} . It makes code look clean and professional: javascript let obj = { item: "pen", price: 10 }; // Old way: console.log("The cost of", obj.item, "is", obj.price, "rupees."); // Modern way: console.log(`The cost of ${obj.item} is ${obj.price} rupees.`);

A post by Ben Halpern

Hoi hoi! I’m @nyaomaru, a frontend engineer who recently discovered the deliciousness of a cheese...

Thoughts? Do you guys use models like Kimi or DeepSeek? Are you worried about data privacy, or not so much concern? submitted by /u/RutabagaTechnical822 [link] [留言]

2× Claude Code Pro's usage at $15/mo Discussion | Link

Most developer tools in 2026 want your data. They want you to create an account, sync to the cloud, share analytics, and join a team plan. Every new tool is another service that knows what you are working on. I wanted something different. CodeFootprint CodeFootprint is a Mac app that tracks file changes in your project folders. It records every edit with full diff, every deletion with recoverable content, and precise timelines for everything. And it does all of this without ever connecting to the internet. How It Works Select a folder to monitor Code as normal — CodeFootprint records in the background Open it anytime to see what changed, when, and how Export change traces to share with AI tools for debugging The Design Decision I made a deliberate choice: no accounts, no cloud, no telemetry, no data leaving your machine. Not because cloud is bad, but because your project files are some of the most sensitive data you own. Your code, your configs, your unpublished work — a file change tracker sees all of it. A tool that watches everything you change should be trustworthy by design, not by promise. For Developers Who Use AI Tools If you work with multiple AI coding tools, CodeFootprint gives you something valuable: a shared context you can export. Instead of manually explaining to each new AI tool what happened in your project, you hand it a trace file and say "here is the history." Available Now CodeFootprint is on the Mac App Store . No account needed. No internet required. Your files stay on your machine. More convenience. More protection. More peace of mind.

With shiftbloom studio. I build tools and projects about a variety of experimental approaches to real-world problems. The issue for such use-case often was how most small media systems start out: one big always-on recorder that keeps costing money even when nothing is happening. For live capture you obviously need to stay ready at all times — sometimes you can’t risk losing the first minutes. But for everything else it’s complete overkill. The Core Problem Backfills, VOD downloads, clip imports, repairs and re-encodes are queue work. They can wait a few seconds, run on burst capacity, or even on a regular VPS or laptop. They don’t need the same always-hot infrastructure as the live recorder. That’s why I split the system. Instead of one large monolith, I deployed: Observer cells — only for live streams (time-critical) Harvest cells — for all queue processing (can be delayed) The Three Roles 1. Mothership A small control-plane cron job. It checks queue sizes, currently live channels and running observer tasks, then decides: how many harvest cells should exist right now which channels need an observer cell It’s intentionally simple. The database remains the single source of truth. 2. Observer Cells Each observer cell records exactly one live channel. It receives its assignment through environment variables: +++env OBSERVER_VOD_ID OBSERVER_CHANNEL_ID OBSERVER_CHANNEL_LOGIN OBSERVER_CHANNEL_NAME +++ It starts recording immediately, writes HLS segments to object storage, sends heartbeats, and waits a short standby window after the stream goes offline. This window is important because streams sometimes drop and reconnect quickly. Without it you end up with many small broken VOD fragments. 3. Harvest Cells These handle all background work: downloading VODs, re-encoding, recovering broken files, etc. They can run anywhere Docker is available — AWS tasks, a small VPS, or even a spare laptop. They only need outbound access to Postgres and object storage. What Changed Previous

pluckmd exists so an agent can pull blog posts into markdown, index them into a wiki, and generate interactive HTML to learn from. This post is about the first step, the part with no per-site code, because the design is the interesting bit. If you want the practical side, how I actually use it day to day, I wrote that up separately: https://dev.to/taisei_ide/how-i-use-pluckmd-to-read-blogs-with-an-ai-agent-1jpe It downloads articles from a blog without any per-site code. No handler for Medium, no handler for Substack, nothing keyed on a domain. Here's how that works. The core idea: treat extraction as data, not code. AdapterSpec Instead of branching on which site you're on, pluckmd resolves an AdapterSpec . It's a plain object that says which selector finds article links, what the URL pattern looks like, and how pagination behaves. interface AdapterSpec { listing : ListingExtractionSpec ; // how to find article links article : ArticleExtractionSpec ; // how to pull the body pagination : PaginationSpec ; // none | scroll | button-click | next-url | auto evidence : string ; } Because it's data, the same shape can come from a heuristic, an LLM, an agent, or a person typing it by hand. They all produce the same thing, and they all go through the same checks. Resolving it, cheapest path first cache -> heuristics (local, free) -> LLM (only if needed) Cache first, rechecked against today's DOM so a stale entry can't sneak through. Then local heuristics. The LLM only gets called when the heuristics aren't sure. Every result that works gets written back, so the second run on a site is basically instant. How the heuristics find an article list This part has no idea what site it's looking at. It takes every link, normalizes the path, and collapses the parts that vary into wildcards. / blog / my - first - post -> / blog /* / blog / another - article -> / blog /* / about -> / about Group by that shape. Any group with the same pattern repeated three or more times is a candidate f

PageSpeed Insights had been staring at me for weeks. Desktop was holding at 91. Mobile was stuck at 63. I'd already fixed the obvious stuff — non-blocking fonts, preconnects, fetchpriority on the hero image. But there it was, every single run: Improve image delivery — Est savings of 985 KiB Nearly a megabyte of wasted transfer, just from six project screenshots. And that was just the images visible above the fold. The full list across all projects was worse. The culprit: every image I'd ever uploaded through the Django admin was a PNG. Some of them were over 1 MB. WebP would have cut most of them by 80%. I knew this. I just hadn't done anything about it. So I wrote a management command to fix the backlog, and then made the model auto-convert on every future upload so I'd never have to think about it again. The Problem With PNGs in a Portfolio When you're building a portfolio, you screenshot your work and drag it into the admin. That screenshot is usually a PNG — lossless, full-size, straight from your display. Nobody optimises it because the admin accepts it and it shows up fine in the browser. But "shows up fine" isn't the same as "loads fast." A 1.4 MB PNG of a law firm homepage does not need to be 1.4 MB. Served as WebP at quality 85, it's 175 KB. Same visual result. Eight times smaller. Multiply that across 28 projects and you're looking at tens of megabytes that mobile users on slow 4G are downloading just to scroll past thumbnails. The One-Time Backlog Fix: A Management Command First, I needed a way to convert everything that was already in S3. A management command was the right tool — it runs in the production container with full access to the Django ORM and the configured storage backend, so it can read and rewrite files without needing to know whether they're on S3, local disk, or anywhere else. # backend/projects/management/commands/convert_images_to_webp.py from io import BytesIO from django.core.files.base import ContentFile from django.core.management.b