|
|
|
|
|
|
by lukevp
2037 days ago
|
|
|
Hope this isn’t what’s happening with dark[0]. Saw the early demos and I think the concept is killer, and don’t see why they would focus on a rewrite instead of building on what they have. I never even got asked to pay for it before they pivoted? It kinda felt like giving up and going back to building something instead of marketing and selling what they had. I say this with much respect for what they built, and someone who also tends toward focusing on the technical when things get hard. [0]: https://blog.darklang.com/new-backend-fsharp/ |
|
|
Regarding marketing and selling what we have: we tried that and it's pretty clear we're missing important bits, in particular packages for common vendors (stripe, slack, etc), and a package for user management, as well as common things like validation. People love the concept (as do you, thanks!), but were struggling to build things because of what was missing.
As we went to build these, the tech/product debt that we had built up during our experimental phase really started to become apparent. We were missing common and expected things like user-defined types (maybe not important for dynamic langs, but we're a statically typed functional language, so being able to create types is kinda important), configurable (or at least changable) HTTP middleware, and a few other things.
The reason for the rewrite is that had been taking long detours around our tech stack for a while. Now that there's limited resources (as in, just me), the cost of taking the long way to everything we build is just a little too high, so it feels like a rewrite (note: just of the backend, the majority of the code is in the frontend and doesn't need to change!) is necessary to get to product/market fit.
I also hope it won't be the death of us. Fortunately, F# isn't a valid value for $hotlang! (Good thing I didn't pick Rust!)