The idea is that if something would have been a compile-time error (ex: using a method that doesn’t exist), but you don’t see that compile error because you don’t have a compiler, the error is still there. It’s just that you won’t see it until the associated code happens to run. Essentially the compiler can catch whole classes of bugs early on. Just because it’s annoying to be told your code has bugs doesn’t make that better than having bugs and just not being told.
You have coding skills. Some marketing and video production skills. Self discipline and persistence. The time to spend 18hr days on a project. Why look for employment? Start your own business.
are you some kind of fortune teller!? haha. so that's so funny you say that because that, too, is a big part of the story. actually I was gearing up to do exactly that - but everything blew up in my face and this Doom project was, in many ways, my way of picking up the pieces from the rubble.
there's another reason, which is that I really get a lot of energy from working with other people. it makes me really happy. and right now especially I really love the people I work with. I learned this lesson the hard way in my stint contracting - because the inter-personal relationships are very different when you're there one day and gone the next (as a contractor).
> Because users do not know that there's some hypothetical "better" experience they could have had and do not care, unless your service/tool/whatever is not functioning correctly.
If your business competitors prioritise UX over DX, your users will soon know. And then they won't be your users any more.
This is one of those "false delima" logical fallacies. The idea that you have to choose between a "nicer UI" and "many features, no bugs, shipped promptly".
All those are important, and given a talented team, there is absolutely no reason why you cannot have good UX, lots of features, few bugs shipped on time.
Going back to the original point, "the features they need, shipped promptly, and without bugs" you speak of is actually part of the UX (user experience)!
Maybe you are mixing up the UI design with the UX? In any case, the original point is just highlighting the importance of UX, without giving any solid examples of DX.
You've put in some good, hard work there, congrats.
I'm thinking I'd have to have some very fine scrolling skills, and sit exactly still to keep my eyes constantly on one small vertical area of the page. And I'd rather dart and exercise my eyeballs than my scrolling finger :)
> I need to do web again for a simple web app, but boy is it confusing.
If your goal is just to create a simple web app, you could still use simple HTML, CSS and JS. These are standards that are mostly backwards compatible, even though they've evolved a lot. Maybe add in some jQuery too.
If your goal is to catch up with the modern tech stack, pick one of the popular frameworks (React, Vue, Svelte, Angular) and learn it, starting with their official documents. This assumes you're already comfortable or familiar with the fundamentals (HTML, CSS, JS).
With PHP, you don't have to worry about compile-time bugs, because there is no compile time.