"Claude Code uses Bun" is the reason that's given. But even though Anthropic tells us that "coding is solved", instead of rewriting Claude Code in something other than JS, they bought a company that made a JS runtime and then did a mass rewrite of that JS runtime.
Real talk, though, you should already have talked to enough people about solving this problem for them that you have a list of contacts who are eager to sign up.
Sounds like you don't have that. I'm kinda going to guess that you fell into the trap of building something without validating the need for it first.
Because to be completely honest, no business would ever sign up for this, and no reasonable individuals will sign up to carry anonymous packages through customs. The people that would deal with this for whatever $25 you can pay them are exactly the people you should never trust to carry your customers' packages in the first place.
Seems like the author's only talking about the extreme end of the spectrum. Not every fork is attempting to replace the forked project. There are so many other lesser degrees.
You can fork something just for a fun or experimentation. You could have a use case that the project doesn't handle and you aren't ready or interested in contributing that solution (especially if you only need this for a one-off scenario or a short-lived project).
This could also apply to needs that your client or company has, but it's out of scope for the original project, so you make a private fork that you and your team maintain internally. It could be that you DO actually make this public (either initially or eventually) so other people who have the same need can benefit and possibly contribute.
It could even be that, over time, the amount of users of your fork convince the upstream project that there is a need for this use case. Maybe they decide to handle it themselves or maybe your fork merges back in with the upstream. Sometimes projects just can't say yes to certain things because they wouldn't want to/be able to implement, maintain and support it. Seeing that you and others maintain a fork for a non-trivial amount of time can establish the credibility that there is indeed someone who will maintain this.
> Learn your tools, people. This is the equivalent of a contractor taping rulers together because they didn’t realize their bag comes with a tape measure.
I feel like this is one of the big things we lose when working completely remote and disconnected: missing out on all these chances to help each other. We don't know the things we don't know.
Imagine OP was going to do a rebase -i, sitting next to a teammate and said, "man, I would do anything to be able to use interactive rebase without having to learn vim", and their teammate turned back and said, "Oh, you can use any editor you want".
2. You don't need to be a Vim pro to interactive rebase effectively. Most of it will be `dd` to remove a line, `p` to paste a line, `j`/`k` to move up and down lines, and `cw` to change `pick` to `edit`, etc. Spend 15m with `vimtutor` (which is probably available on your system) and you'll never be afraid of vim again.
Get Programming With Haskell by Will Kurt. Made up of small lessons that all build on top of each other and will really help you understand what's going on.
I wanted to like Effective Haskell but honestly didn't. YMMV.
> That analysis showed that self-checkout led to a shrink rate more than 16 times higher than traditional cashier lines. Nearly 7% of self-checkout transactions had at least some amount of partial shrink, compared to 0.32% with cashiers. The analysis also suggested a shrink rate of 3.5% for self-checkout machines, while conventional cashiers only saw a 0.21% shrink rate.
This is pretty awful work advice for the average person. Most people aren't Feynman.
Taking this approach can free up your calendar, and it might even work out okay for you IF you are already indespensbile and you just produce so much value for your company that they'll put up with it.
For everyone else, you might end up with your calendar permanantly cleared.
As for the aspects relating to personal life, the author sounds like they could use some help.
"Claude Code uses Bun" is the reason that's given. But even though Anthropic tells us that "coding is solved", instead of rewriting Claude Code in something other than JS, they bought a company that made a JS runtime and then did a mass rewrite of that JS runtime.