I tried a few. Zola was the only one I got far enough with to actually get my site deployed.
Some of that might be that I learned stuff from my previous failures, but I really feel like the combination of the way it works and the Zola-specific themes are what worked for me.
But typically when a field becomes more affordable, it goes up in demand, not down, because the target audience that can afford the service grows exponentially.
I've always been very up front with the fact that I could not have made a career out of programming without tools like Delphi and Visual Basic. I'm simply not productive enough to have to also transcribe my mental images into text to get useful and productive UIs.
All of my employers and the vast majority of my clients were small businesses with fewer than 150 employees and most had fewer than a dozen employees. Not a one of them could afford a programmer who had to type everything out.
If that's what happens with AI tooling, then I'm all for it. There are still far too many small businesses, village administrators, and the like being left using general purpose office "productivity" software instead of something tailored to their actual needs.
One of my dictionaries says a smirk is "To smile in a way that is affected, smug, insolent or contemptuous."
A smile typically suggests amusement, and I see nothing in that expression suggestive of amusement. I would call it something more like "displeasure at finding myself having to once again clean up someone else's mess." So maybe not actual disgust, but something related.
... if your company or your job depend are at stake, that's often a risk you have to take
Take all the risks you want. Just be sure that you're the one actually taking the risk, not the people whose data you manage. I get really tired of people and companies who claim that it was a necessary risk when they're not the ones paying for the bad outcomes.
You risk something by standing your ground, not in agreeing to that which puts me at risk.
All excellent points. I never worked at those scales or under those conditions, neither should I have been permitted to. And I had enough self-awareness to keep myself away from anything like that.
I guess when I read about this breach or that, the real damage seems to be a result of not having the basics covered. Whatever "basic" might mean for different scales of operation, encrypted at rest seems to be the the basis of public harm through theft of data, and it strikes me that if that can't be managed at a particular scale, then operating at that scale should not be considered.
Of course, but that just makes the case for security as a foundational principle even stronger.
Mistakes happen. They always will. That's not a reason to just leave security as the afterthought it so often is.
None of the things I mentioned have anything to do with errors and scope creep, but everything to do with building using sound principles and practices always. As in, you know, always. In class, during bootcamps, during design meetings, when writing sample code, when writing reference implementations, during the construction of the prototype that, let's face it, almost always goes into production. Always.
That is something I just don't get. I'm a hobbyist turned pro turned hobbyist. The only people who I ever offered my services to were either after one of my very narrow specialties where I was actually an expert or literally could not afford a "real" programmer.
I never found proper security to have any impact on my productivity. Even going back to my peak years in the first decade of this century, there was so much easily accessible information, so many good tutorials, and so many good products that even my prototypes incorporated the basics:
Edited to add:
It's like safety in the workplace. If it's always an add-on, it will always be of limited effectiveness and reduce productivity. If it's built in to the process from the ground up, it's extremely effective and those doing things unsafely will be the productivity drain.
That sounds ideal. Machines that are mostly maintained by experienced people and a community to help you gain experience.
This may not apply to your situation, but I found that most of my problems like this were related to "general vs specific".
Many people have difficulty generalizing from specific instructions so they need help every time something looks different to them. In an extreme case, found a person unable to choose a font in the header of a word processing document because the only thing they'd ever been shown was how to choose a font in the body of the document. It's not even that they were particularly dense, it's that they'd seen so much unexpected and unexplained variation in other areas that they started assuming that everything is an isolated task with a potentially distinct set of procedures. Now that I've switched from Windows to Linux, I'm getting a better understanding of how that happens, with many applications using different hotkeys, not implementing what I think are sensible "tab ordering", etc.
Many people have difficulty going from the general to the specific without also seeing several specific examples in a variety of scenarios. That kind of thing normally requires more formalized training. If their only exposure to your knowledge is through ad-hoc help desk kinds of interactions, there will be no opportunity to put everything together.
Tension. Always tension. My mom had the same battles. My aunt never had trouble.
I suspect that buying a new mid-grade machine or better from a reputable dealer is the secret. I've bought a couple of $50 used machines because I don't want to spend 10 times that or more if it turns out that I'm not going to actually use it. I already do enough of that. 😀
Go find a sewing club and get their advice. That's what I'm doing the next time the bug bites.
Just in case anyone else is, like, "WTF," the seniors in question are those about to get a university degree from Stanford, not people like me (age 67).
In the spirit of "-10x is dragging everyone else down" I offer my take on +10x:
It's not about personal productivity. It's about the collective productivity that comes from developing and implementing processes that take advantage of all levels of skill, from neophyte to master, in ways that foster the growth of others, both in skill and in their ability to mentor, guide, and foster the growth of others. The ultimate goal is the "creation" of more masters and "multipliers" while making room for those whose aptitudes, desires, and ambitions differ from your own.