Hey everyone, I wanted to share an open-source library I’ve been developing to solve a persistent issue in frontend file ingestion: handling large-file uploads efficiently without blocking the main thread, consuming excessive client-side memory, or introducing heavy npm dependencies. The core architecture leverages Fetch Duplex streams combined with Web Streams API to achieve constant memory usage during large file transfers. For browsers lacking full duplex stream support (such as Safari), it seamlessly switches to an automated chunked XHR fallback at runtime. ⚙️ Core Architecture & Features Constant Memory Footprint: Streams large chunks sequentially using Fetch duplex streaming where supported. Intelligent Runtime Fallback: Detects capabilities instantly and falls back to a robust, chunked XMLHttpRequest pipeline to ensure cross-browser compatibility (including Safari). Resilient Lifecycle Management: Built-in hooks for pause, resume, manual abort, and automated chunk-level retries with a configurable exponential backoff algorithm. Zero Dependencies & Tree-shakeable: Written entirely in vanilla TypeScript with no external runtime dependencies (npm install u/universal-uploader/core). The architecture is highly modular, ensuring that unused upload strategies are completely tree-shaken during compilation. React Primitive Included: Ships with a declarative React hook that maps the entire upload lifecycle to state primitives without causing redundant re-renders. 🛠️ Why Existing Solutions Didn't Fit Most mainstream uploading libraries either rely on heavy multi-part form encodings that require buffering files entirely into browser memory, or pull in heavy polyfill architectures that bloating the initial bundle size. I designed this to isolate the transport layer logic via a composition-based approach, separating the stream controller from the network client. To ensure deterministic behavior, the codebase is fully covered by 127 integration/unit tests validating network

FinOps X 2026 , terminó hace apenas una semana y concluyó con JR Storment, el Director Ejecutivo de la FinOps Foundation compartiendo uno de los anuncios más esperados, la presentación de Tokenomics Foundation . ¿Qué es? Es una iniciativa de la Linux Foundation, que busca establecer estándares abiertos, lineamientos referentes, y buenas prácticas de forma específica para el costo en Inteligencia Artificial y el uso de tokens, así como otros elementos relacionados con esta tecnología con el objetivo de guiar a las empresas y organizaciones a optimizar su consumo de IA y generar mejores resultados en el valor tecnológico. Algunas acciones: Visualización de los costos Atribución del valor Estandarización de procesos, entre ellos FOCUS La creación de esta iniciativa surge en un momento en el que la IA, se ha colocado como una de las tendencias más relevantes, desde LATAM y otras regiones, con diferentes niveles de desarrollo, y un nivel de diversidad complejo. De forma aparente el costo de la IA puede verse reflejado en los tokens, pero la realidad es que sólo es una parte de los que representa el costo de soluciones de IA, partiendo particularmente de la estructura de costos de estas tecnología, en lo global, podemos detectar 3: Costos del modelo : Engloban los costos del desarrollo e implementación del modelo Costos indirectos : Están relacionados con el funcionamiento de un modelo a nivel organizacional Costos asociados : Integran las erogaciones, relacionadas con las puesta en marcha del modelo, pero no directamente en él, por ejemplo, la infraestructura, y servicios relacionados Dentro de cada categoría de costos, los servicios y etapas del desarrollo de IA, son variados Los servicios y etapas de la creación de procesos de IA que están involucrados en cada categoría de costos, muestran la complejidad para la creación de valor en estas iniciativas. Durante FinOps X, tuvimos diferentes charlas relacionadas con IA, el principal reto: cómo monitorear, medir, e incremen

📖 Originally published on my blog . Part of a series on building with Claude Code. For a while I'd watch the AI work and quietly grumble: a fairly big task, and it would finish one module before starting the next, while I just sat there waiting for it to clear one before the other's turn came up. The work itself was fine—it was just slow. Slow because it was stuck in a queue. Then it clicked: a lot of these modules have nothing to do with each other, so why make them go one after another? Split them up, let several agents work at the same time, done. What I want, and where it stops What I want is simple: the same work, for roughly the same tokens, with the wall-clock time cut way down. But let me put the boundary up front— not every task can be split this way . This is just an approach I've worked out for myself; take what's useful. The prerequisite: a clean architecture For several agents to work at once without stepping on each other, the prerequisite isn't the AI—it's your architecture . That task of mine could be split because it was already several modules, talking to each other through interfaces, with internal implementations that don't affect one another—as long as each one honors the interface contract, it can be built independently. Loosely coupled, highly cohesive, in other words. And I'd nailed that design down together with opus before writing a line: opus helps me think it through and lays out options, but I'm the one who decides . You can't cut corners here. Forcing parallelism onto an architecture you haven't cleanly split is like cutting a tangle of yarn into a few pieces that are all still knotted together—it only gets messier. Who runs the show, who plans, who does the work With the design settled, it's time to assign roles. The split I tend to use: opus runs the show —holds the big picture, hands out work, does the final check; sonnet does the TDD planning —per the design, it lays out how each module gets tested and implemented; haiku writes the

Wiring an LLM as a first-class Yjs peer is architecturally sound — but it invalidates three silent assumptions your collaboration stack already makes about peer symmetry: throughput, undo ownership, and presence cadence. You've tuned a Yjs provider under real collaborative load. You know the feeling before you can name it — one heavy client starts lagging the room, presence updates stutter, and you end up adding a debounce somewhere and calling it done. Now imagine that client generates text at 3,000 words per minute, never goes offline, and has its own awareness cursor. That's not a sidebar feature. That's a new class of peer, and your collaboration architecture wasn't designed for it. The Demo Is Real — But It Skips the Hard Parts In April 2026, a working demo wired an LLM as a genuine server-side Yjs document peer — same transport as the human editors, same CRDT, its own awareness state. The implementation uses y-prosemirror and the standard awareness protocol directly. If you've shipped TipTap collaboration, you already have every dependency it needs. The architecture is correct. Making the agent a server-side peer — rather than a client-side bolt-on posting diffs over a REST endpoint — gives you one convergence model instead of two, real presence semantics for the agent, and a clean separation between the LLM streaming layer and the document state layer. But the demo establishes the peer model. It doesn't stress-test what happens to your existing assumptions once that peer is running. The Silent Assumption Every CRDT Implementation Makes Here it is — the assumption baked into the Yjs awareness protocol, the undo manager, and your backpressure strategy, the one nobody wrote down because it was always true until now: All peers produce operations at roughly human speed. Not identical speed. Human typists vary. But they land in the same order of magnitude. The entire design space — how often you broadcast awareness, how you scope undo history, whether you need per-

AI Coding Agents Need a Control Layer AI coding agents are getting good enough that the problem is changing. A year ago, the question was mostly: Can this thing write useful code? Now, for a lot of builders, the better question is: How do I supervise this thing once it is actually doing work? That shift feels important. Claude Code, Cursor, Codex, and similar tools are not just autocomplete anymore. They can plan, edit files, run commands, review code, and work across larger chunks of a project. That is powerful. It also gets messy fast. The bottleneck is moving The hard part is no longer just picking the best coding agent. It is figuring out how to manage agent work once multiple tools or sessions are active. Questions start showing up: What is each agent doing right now? What changed? What still needs human review? Where did approval happen? Which agent owns which task? Did two agents touch the same part of the codebase? What should be paused, redirected, or stopped? What happened while I was focused somewhere else? That is not really a prompting problem. It is a control problem. The current workflow is mostly duct tape A lot of agent workflows seem to rely on some combination of: terminal tabs tmux sessions git branches git worktrees editor diffs notes issue trackers rules files memory vibes That works for a while. But once agents become more autonomous, or once a builder runs more than one agent at a time, the workflow starts to need a real operating layer around it. Not because the agents are bad. Because the agents are getting useful enough to need supervision. The missing layer The layer I keep thinking about has a few jobs. State What is running? What is paused? What needs attention? Ownership Which agent owns which task, branch, file, or objective? Review What changed, and what still needs a human to look at it? Approval Where should the human say yes before work continues? Intervention When should a builder pause, redirect, compare, or stop an agent? Memor

After spending two weeks debugging issues that only showed up in production — a sitemap _redirects rule that was blocking my own sitemap-index.xml and a Bluesky image upload race against Cloudflare Pages deploy lag — I added three post-deploy checks to my workflow. They're fast and specific to the failure modes I've actually hit, not a full end-to-end test suite. Three sites (aiappdex.com, findindiegame.com, ossfind.com) on Cloudflare Pages with Astro 5 SSG. Here's what I check. Check 1: Sitemap reachability The simplest check and the one I should have had from day one. After a Cloudflare Pages deploy, I verify that sitemap-index.xml is reachable and returning 200 on all three domains: for domain in aiappdex.com findindiegame.com ossfind.com ; do status = $( curl -s -o /dev/null -w "%{http_code}" "https:// $domain /sitemap-index.xml" ) echo " $domain /sitemap-index.xml → $status " if [ " $status " != "200" ] ; then echo "FAIL: $domain sitemap unreachable" fi done I also check sitemap-0.xml — the actual URL sub-sitemap that @astrojs/sitemap generates — and assert that it contains at least a minimum expected URL count. For aiappdex.com that threshold is 1,000; if it drops below that after a deploy, the ETL data pipeline probably broke silently. The reason this check exists: I had a _redirects rule rewriting sitemap-index.xml → sitemap-0.xml as an emergency workaround that turned out to be wrong. It was live for five days before I found it. The rule was blocking the real sitemap-index.xml from reaching crawlers while appearing fine in the browser (which followed the redirect). Curl with -o /dev/null -w "%{http_code}" doesn't follow redirects by default, so it would have caught this immediately. Check 2: IndexNow batch submission After every successful sitemap check, I run node scripts/indexnow.mjs . The script reads the live sitemap XML from each domain, collects all URLs, and POSTs them to the IndexNow endpoint for Bing, Yandex, Naver, and Seznam using site-specific k

The obvious counterargument to everything I'm building is this: Google already does it. You type "best AI tools for video editing" into Google and an AI Overview surfaces a curated list, synthesized from the same kind of data I maintain, without requiring a click. My three directory sites — Top AI Tools , Find Games Like , and Open Alternative To — are competing with a feature baked into the world's dominant search engine. I launched these sites on 2026-04-23, built on an architecture that runs at about $25/month . Traffic is essentially zero — the sites have been indexed for three weeks and organic crawling takes time. The question I keep returning to isn't whether Google will eventually index my pages. It's whether anyone will prefer clicking through to my site over reading the AI Overview box that already answered the same question. Here's my honest, falsifiable position. The bet, stated plainly By October 2026 — six months post-launch — at least one of the three sites will show organic click trends in Google Search Console indicating real query traffic to specific comparison or filtered-browse pages. I define that as: at least 200 non-homepage organic clicks per month, sustained for two consecutive months, from queries I didn't directly drive through social or newsletter posts. If that doesn't happen, I'll publish the Search Console screenshots and write a post explaining what I got wrong. I'm committing to that here. The counterargument I take seriously AI Overviews have gotten genuinely good at list-and-compare synthesis. If you search "open source alternative to Notion" today, Google often returns a four-item structured list with one-sentence descriptions directly in the Overview box. My Open Alternative To site covers that territory. The AI Overview absorbs the zero-click version of that query. The optimistic response is: "my site appears as a citation source." The pessimistic response is: "Google consumes your signal and stops sending clicks." The pessimist

Pernahkah kamu membuat sebuah proyek perangkat lunak, mengunggahnya ke GitHub, lalu menyadari bahwa kamu belum menambahkan lisensi apa pun di repositori tersebut? Banyak developer pemula yang mengira bahwa menaruh kode di GitHub otomatis membuatnya menjadi open-source . Padahal, secara default , proyek tanpa fail lisensi memiliki hak cipta yang tertutup ( exclusive copyright ). Artinya, orang lain atau developer penerus secara teknis tidak boleh menyalin, mendistribusikan, atau memodifikasi kodemu. Agar proyek tersebut aman untuk dilanjutkan dan dimodifikasi oleh pengembang selanjutnya, kita wajib menambahkan lisensi terbuka. MIT License adalah pilihan paling aman dan populer karena sifatnya yang sangat membebaskan. Berikut adalah cara kilat menyematkan MIT License pada repositori GitHub yang sudah telanjur berjalan tanpa perlu menggunakan command line : Langkah 1: Buat Fail Baru di Repositori Buka halaman utama repositori GitHub kamu. Di bagian atas daftar fail dan folder kodemu, klik tombol Add file , kemudian pilih Create new file . Langkah 2: Pancing Fitur "License Template" Pada kolom pengisian nama fail, ketikkan kata LICENSE (pastikan menggunakan huruf kapital semua). Begitu kamu selesai mengetikkan kata tersebut, GitHub akan otomatis memunculkan sebuah tombol baru di sebelah kanan bernama Choose a license template . Klik tombol tersebut. Langkah 3: Pilih MIT License Kamu akan dibawa ke halaman yang berisi daftar berbagai jenis lisensi open-source . Pilih MIT License dari menu di sebelah kiri. GitHub akan otomatis meracik draf teks lisensinya, lengkap dengan nama akun GitHub kamu dan tahun saat ini. Klik tombol hijau Review and submit di pojok kanan atas. Langkah 4: Lakukan Commit Gulir ke bagian bawah halaman. Tulis pesan commit yang singkat dan jelas (misalnya: "Add MIT License for future development" ), lalu klik tombol hijau Commit changes... . Selesai! Sekarang proyek lama kamu sudah memiliki "payung" yang jelas dan resmi berstatus open-source . Reposito

Teachers and parents lose a surprising amount of time hunting for printable practice sheets, then hitting a sign-up wall or a paywall. So I built a small set of free tools that make the sheet you need in a couple of clicks, with no account and no email. They run entirely client-side in the browser, so nothing is uploaded or stored, and every sheet prints straight to paper or saves as a PDF. What is in the set so far: A maths worksheet generator (addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, mixed) with an answer key A name-tracing sheet generator for early writers A spelling worksheet generator A word search maker Routine and chore chart makers The hub is here: Free printable tools A few build notes for anyone making something similar: Keeping it fully client-side meant zero backend cost and instant load, which matters when a teacher opens it on a school tablet on a slow connection. The fiddly part was the print layout. A dedicated print stylesheet with CSS page breaks gave a much cleaner result than forcing a PDF library. Removing the sign-up step takes out all the friction, which is the whole point for a busy classroom. I run a small Brisbane children's book imprint, Lantern Path Books , and these started as a side project to help the parents and teachers who read our picture books. They are free to use and share. Happy to talk through the print-layout approach if it is useful to anyone.

All tests run on an 8-year-old MacBook Air. All results from shipping 7 Mac apps as a solo developer. No sponsored opinion. I built Hiyoko PDF Vault — a macOS PDF tool — in Rust. Choosing the right PDF library was the first real decision. lopdf or pdfium. Here's what I found. lopdf: pure Rust, no dependencies lopdf is pure Rust. No C bindings, no system libraries, no bundling headaches. What it does well: Merge, split, rotate pages Read and write PDF structure Metadata manipulation Bates numbering Works well for structural PDF operations What it struggles with: Rendering PDFs to images (not its job) Complex font handling Malformed PDFs — lopdf is strict; real-world PDFs often aren't For a tool that manipulates PDF structure without rendering — merge, split, encrypt, add watermarks, strip metadata — lopdf is the right choice. Pure Rust means easy cross-compilation and universal binaries with no extra work. pdfium: full rendering, C dependency pdfium is Google's PDF engine (from Chromium). The pdfium-render crate wraps it for Rust. What it does well: Accurate PDF rendering to images Handles malformed PDFs that lopdf rejects Text extraction from complex layouts Full PDF spec compliance What it requires: Bundling the pdfium binary with your app (~20MB) Architecture-specific binaries (x86_64 and aarch64 for universal binary) More complex build setup For a tool that needs to display PDFs or extract text from complex documents, pdfium is the right choice. You pay for it in bundle size and build complexity. What I actually use lopdf for structural operations: merge, split, encrypt, watermark, metadata, Bates numbering. Apple Vision Framework (via Tauri shell commands) for OCR — it's already on the user's Mac and handles Japanese text better than anything I could bundle. I avoided pdfium because the bundle size increase wasn't worth it for my use case. If I needed accurate rendering, that calculation would change. The honest recommendation Start with lopdf. It covers most PD

I thought DEV Challenges were about winning. What participating in DEV Challenges taught me. A few months ago, I joined DEV. I didn't know many people. I wasn't well known. I simply wanted to become a better developer. Like many newcomers, I believed something very simple. "If I can win a challenge, maybe that means I'm becoming a real developer." So I kept participating. Sometimes I built retro games. Sometimes I experimented with AI. Sometimes I simply challenged myself to finish something before the deadline. Every challenge taught me something. Every badge made me smile. But after several months, I realized something unexpected. The biggest prize wasn't the badge. I started asking myself... What happens after the contest ends? The badge stays on my profile. The project goes to GitHub. Then... What's next? That question stayed with me for a long time. Then I realized something. I had been focusing on the contest. But the real value wasn't the contest. It was the community. Without DEV... I would never have discussed ideas with developers from around the world. I would never have received reactions from people I had admired. I would never have met developers with completely different ways of thinking. The challenge wasn't just building software. The challenge was becoming part of a community. Something I had rarely experienced before. Most communication happens inside companies. DEV felt different. It gave me a place to keep showing up. To keep learning. To keep improving. That matters more than I realized. The hardest part isn't building software. This surprised me. As I kept building apps, I realized something. Building an app is difficult. But building a place where people discover that app... is much harder. That's when I started appreciating communities like DEV even more. Someone had to build this place. Someone had to create a market where beginners and experienced developers could stand on the same stage. That's an incredible achievement. My goal changed.