You picked one concern of multiple: Code discoverability of an already known project.
Multiple times I have found project sources on their own platforms, and when I would have contributed tickets or code, I did not because of requiring yet another account on yet another platform, with whatever yet unknown signup workflow.
And there is man other concerns, some of which the comment you are replied to mentioned.
they want to push a lot of buttons on those controls
LOL
Even with a lot of buttons available, good videogame controls are simple and narrow. Natural combinations add depth without overcomplicating things.
its goal is to be more user-accessible than NixOS
How does it attempt to do that? I assume it doesn't change Nix. Does it hide the configuration behind GUIs?
First half is a general introduction, second half is an introduction to their product Digma, which is limited to Java and IntelliJ.
Currently, Digma fully supports Java and IntelliJ, along with related frameworks such as Spring, Spring Boot, Dropwizard, and Micronaut. If you’re interested in other languages, you can find more information here.
Overall it feels shallow to me.
From what I see they didn't even support the claims they set out to present. They show a few screens of their tool, but never how that would "avoid breaking changes". The conclusion is incredibly generic. Feels like publicity/promotion and keywords content was the goal rather than actually sharing information. OP only posting their Digma content fits the impression of PR too.
How do you self-review while writing? What do you mean by that?
I see it as different phases of development, mindset, and focus. You inherently can't be in multiple at the same time.
It makes no sense to be thorough during experimental and iterative exploration. That'd be wasted effort.
After finding a solution, and writing it out, a self-review will make you take a systematic, verifying review mindset.
Mastodon is a Fediverse platform. Lemmy is too. Anyone can host their own Mastodon and Lemmy instances.
When a user uploads an image or video on Mastodon instance 1, and a user of Mastodon instance 2 is following them, that image or video is copied over to Mastodon instance 2 - because that's where that user resides.
This means content gets replicated and duplicated across every shared-network instance. Resulting in resilience, but also ~~exponential~~, excessive storage needs.
OP is suggesting that media files should be shared across platform instances so that they don't get duplicated many times. This would significantly reduce storage and bandwidth needs and use for the platform instances themselves, offloading and centralizing media file concerns.
It's not POSIX either, but I'll answer your closing question: My current shell of preference is Nushell.
Static typically refers to static pages. Which can have dynamic elements, but no backend.
IE: you can’t have a contact form without paying a 3rd party.
Unless you open an email client or other url to forward the contracting I don't consider that (purely) static anymore.
Given that, I'm not sure what you even want "static gen" for? You may be looking for the wrong thing.
From your description, my view is limited, there is no correct solution. Any choice is viable and fine, and any decision you make will be due to the reasons you chose with.
You didn't disclose what the alternative opportunity and field is, and also not your view on the field and you in it. So it's difficult to assess and put into relation.
You didn't disclose what you did before work, but two years is not that much experience for an engineer. Especially if it is not a particularly nourishing environment. You gain such expertise through experience and exposure over time. Depending on the project and environment it's also not enough to fully understand and intuitively know a big project.
At my workplace we separate role from [personal] development level. As a developer one's role may be developer or lead developer. The development stages are Trainee, Junior, Professional, Senior. If you can work on tasks mostly self-reliant (asking and collaborating is still open of course; knowing when to ask is a skill too) and can put tasks and work into context, you are a Professional. A Senior can support and guide the team. It is perfectly fine to settle for Professional.
Not being exceptional is not a good reason to quit. If you work and bring value, that's still value. Don't decide whether you are valuable or good enough for others. (This leaves out the question of what it means for yourself of course. Tackle those questions individually.)
You say you get your work done. Continuing to do that at a Professional Developer rather than Senior level is fine. You still bring value.
I want to know if that’s what it sounds like to people who’ve seen that before. If you were in my position, would you walk away and just be a hobbyist programmer or stick it out and hope to be a mediocre engineer one day?
I really can't answer that specifically.
You said your team environment is not the best. I assume you don't do retrospectives or personal feedback. Is feedback something you could ask [of some of] your team members, lead, or seniors? (Take care not to poison your question for open feedback with your negative assumptions of yourself and your work.)
Where would you like to be? Separating what you think is expected of you from your expectation and view of yourself and from what you enjoyed and where you think you would feel comfortable settling, how would you lay those out?
Have you considered switching project or employer? You have only seen and experienced that place. A different work environment could be very different - even in the same field.
https://github.com/doitsujin/dxvk/releases/tag/v2.5.3