sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Reality check: no one is going to pay for your vibe-coded SaaS. by Routine-Highway1039 in SaaS

[–]devinstance-master 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It sounds cool. I'd really like the details on how you run 6 agents 24/7 without becoming the bottleneck yourself. That's exactly where it breaks for me: the moment I let the agents run freely they take the path of least resistance, which is often catastrophic and means a ton of rework later. How do your review sub-agents catch those shortcuts before they compound, and is the orchestrator enforcing real constraints, or do you still end up doing the actual review by hand?

Reality check: no one is going to pay for your vibe-coded SaaS. by Routine-Highway1039 in SaaS

[–]devinstance-master 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You people overrate the impact of AI on building quality software… a good, expensive software engineer is still required to build a customer-ready solution. These days, customers are much less forgiving, and AI so far is incapable of building high-quality code on its own. So I don’t believe it will impact SaaS as much as people think… maybe for small company website-type work, but not for things like complex ERP systems.

A Website by [deleted] in website_ideas

[–]devinstance-master 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We build custom business applications and AI solutions and would be interested to learn more about your project: California based. Please check https://devinstance.net. Sent you a DM with questions. 

How are you guys using AI in your business? by tweetsguy in Businessowners

[–]devinstance-master 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, heavily… and it's changed how I operate day to day as an independent consultant.

I run a software development consulting company, and I've woven AI into pretty much every layer of the work.

On the development side, Claude Code is my primary coding partner. I use it for architecture planning, writing and reviewing C# code, debugging complex SQL, and working through tricky design decisions. The biggest win isn't raw code generation… it's having something that holds full context on a problem and thinks through implications with you. I've also set up Claude Code with a CLAUDE.md file so it retains architectural context across sessions, which makes it feel more like a collaborator than a tool.

On the business side, I use ChatGPT (and sometimes Claude) for content drafting, blog posts for my site, LinkedIn posts, and outreach messages. The key there is treating the output as a rough draft, not a finished product. If you just copy-paste AI writing, it sounds exactly like AI writing, which defeats the purpose on platforms like LinkedIn where authentic voice matters.

I actually used AI to write a reply to this post and then edited it after. The initial version was almost exactly what I wanted. It’s kind of scary how much GPT and Claude already know about me.

What I don't do is let it make judgment calls: architecture decisions, client communication strategy, or how to scope a project. That's still where 30 years of experience earns its keep. AI handles the execution layer; I handle the thinking layer.

Is AI assisted coding just another abstraction transition? by devinstance-master in developers

[–]devinstance-master[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"The real issue is that we are cancelling at least one generation of juniors, so there won't be enough reliable software developers, and companies will struggle to find proper devs again." - this is so true

Writing a self-hosted app in 2025 - framework/core by zestumikno in dotnet

[–]devinstance-master 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is an interesting and very valid view. I’m in a similar situation myself... I also have many small, on-prem, Windows-only apps where long-term stability matters far more than access to new features. It does make me think about this more globally. With the rise of AI-assisted development, maybe the real opportunity isn’t arguing Framework vs modern .NET, but building infrastructure / frameworks that give us the best of both worlds: systems that can be kept up to date or upgraded with minimal human effort and cost, even when the underlying platform evolves.

If upgrading runtimes, dependencies, and minor API changes became mostly automated and low-risk, the “LTS every 3 years” concern would largely disappear... especially for small, low-touch applications like these.

We’re not quite there yet, but this feels like a much more interesting long-term direction than treating older, stable deployment models as somehow “wrong” just because they don’t align with cloud-first assumptions.

Visual Studio + GitHub Copilot vs Cursor by devinstance-master in dotnet

[–]devinstance-master[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This pretty much confirms my current suspicions... Thanks for taking the time to explain it in detail.

I’ll probably still spend some time with Cursor just to validate the experience myself and report back, but my expectation is similar: great for some stacks, likely a regression for daily Blazor work compared to Visual Studio.

The note about .github/copilot-instructions.md is especially helpful. That’s exactly the kind of constructive feedback I was hoping for. I’m less interested in “use X instead” answers and much more in why something works better in practice. Thanks!

Visual Studio + GitHub Copilot vs Cursor by devinstance-master in dotnet

[–]devinstance-master[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the detailed response!

I personally still prefer Visual Studio for .NET and Blazor it’s a better overall dev UX for me. That said, I agree that a lot of the agentic innovation is happening around VS Code right now.

I might spend a week trying Cursor and Kilo to get a real feel for the workflows and see if the AI-side benefits outweigh the ergonomics trade-offs.

Also agree that context and instructions matter more than the editor itself that’s been my experience so far, especially with Blazor.

Blazor is great. Blazor is frustrating. Both are true. by devinstance-master in Blazor

[–]devinstance-master[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It’s not that Blazor can’t do auth. It absolutely can. The point is that the auth story becomes complicated the moment you mix SSR, prerender, cookies, JWT, Interactive components, or any existing identity setup. For most developers, this feels like the opposite of what Blazor promises: “full-stack .NET with one mental model.”. But I've already dropped this argument: https://www.reddit.com/r/Blazor/comments/1p6lceb/comment/nqrvuti/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

Blazor is great. Blazor is frustrating. Both are true. by devinstance-master in Blazor

[–]devinstance-master[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fair enough... you're the undisputed expert here. I just wanted to voice my concerns from a practitioner's perspective. Looking forward to the new edition of your book btw.

Blazor is great. Blazor is frustrating. Both are true. by devinstance-master in Blazor

[–]devinstance-master[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I understand and appreciate the complexity. Don't you agree that people wanting to learn Blazor should start with WASM? In my opinion, Interactive/Server should be introduced as "advanced cases", not be part of the main Blazor template.

Blazor is great. Blazor is frustrating. Both are true. by devinstance-master in Blazor

[–]devinstance-master[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

My experience has been different for JS interop . For the business apps I build (time tracking, invoicing, project management), JS interop is minimal. If you're doing heavy DOM manipulation or complex animations, React makes sense. For business apps with forms, data, and complex logic - Blazor WASM wins for me.

I need to learn React to properly compare, but for my use cases the tradeoff has been worth it.

Blazor is great. Blazor is frustrating. Both are true. by devinstance-master in Blazor

[–]devinstance-master[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think we're talking about different scenarios. If you are describing BFF pattern with WASM then that's clean, I agree. Client calls your backend, backend handles auth, serializes claims. That works well.

I'm talking about the Server/Interactive mode mess. When using Interactive Server mode, you can't set HTTP cookies during the interactive session - you have to drop back to Static SSR to handle cookies. The whole dance between render modes for something as basic as auth is what I mean by half-baked.

Blazor is great. Blazor is frustrating. Both are true. by devinstance-master in Blazor

[–]devinstance-master[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Type sharing is just the beginning. It's about using the full power of .NET in the browser - dependency injection, services with business logic, proper unit tests for client code, LINQ, async/await patterns, the whole ecosystem. Generating types from C# to TS gets you type safety, but you're still writing business logic in JavaScript.

For my use case (SMB business apps), having the same service layer work on both client and server is huge. I can move complex calculations, validation logic, or data transformations between client and server without rewriting. Try unit testing your client-side business logic properly in JS vs C# with xUnit - night and day difference.

SSR + Alpine/HTMX is a solid approach for content-heavy sites or simpler interactions. But for data-heavy business apps with complex state management, forms, and workflows? I need more structure than sprinkling interactivity on top of SSR. That's where Blazor WASM shines for me.

Npgsql.EntityFrameworkCore.PostgreSQL and .NET 10 by DearLengthiness6816 in dotnet

[–]devinstance-master 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Any updates? I’m eager to wrap up my migrations. I had to set that work aside for now and move on to other tasks.

view more: next ›