Comments by "" (@diadetediotedio6918) on "ThePrimeTime"
channel.
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Also, I think the "one language for a specific purpose" is both a good take and also in some level bullshit (relating to the title of your video as well).
It is good because specialization tends to make better tools fit to their specific purposes, it is good for organization and also allows for more conciseness in what you are trying to express with code.
And it is also bullshit because learning more languages do not imply in a loss, it expands your domain over all the languages you've already learned by generalizing the knowledge, having competition is also extremely good and factually one of the most common reasons I heard from people is that they "don't want needing to learn so much" (which is lazyness³; you also don't need to learn everything, because competition exists and thus you can work with whatever you want most of the time), and also because the more specialized you are the more you lose context about the world of other things, and the more you need that 'recurrence' and fragmentation inside one workload. You can see this with people using JSON, but still inventing more and more protocols around it, or with alternative solutions to protobuf that tries to cover logic or some other bs, or even with Lua where there are like dozens of versions of it trying to generalize it for more cases or for performance-based tasks (like lua-jit or Luau [the roblox version of Lua with types and other features]). I'm also not saying this is bad, but specialization can be a good or a bad thing and it is generally harder to know the exact domain of the problems you are trying to solve (the problems you are tring to find in the real world to specialize in) than to make a general-purpose language that can be used in certain contexts more than others. I think we should have even MORE languages, more and more and more of them, because no one will fullfil all the needs of all programmers ever.
This is one of the reasons of why I think AI's can hurt the developer environment much more than aid, they are good at specific things they have tons of material to train on, and their general tendency is not to innovate but to homogeinize everything (the wet dreams of the "we already have many languages" person).
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@ThePrimeTimeagen
I can also see why it sucks, but at the same time a part of me understands why they exist.
It is that, fundamentally, asynchronous functions are different from synchronous functions, when you write synchronous code you are writing something that will be processed linearly and directly by the processor, you can trust the memory that is on the stack, you can trust that nothing in the program will happen out of your control for that specific context (assuming we're not using threads of course), there may be a number of specific considerations. When a function is async, however, we're dealing with something that is essentially constantly moving around, which will need to be paused and resumed, you can't rely on your stack memory (unless it's copied entirely, which incurs other costs, and the different solutions lead to Pin on Rust), you can't count on the consistency of direct execution, you won't be absolutely sure which thread will execute your code (if we're dealing with async in a multithreaded environment like C# ) and you won't even know when (since that's the purpose of async in the first place), there are a lot of considerations that need to be made when using it (and I also understand that this is part of the tediousness of writing asynchronous code).
Of course, that said, I've suffered a lot with function colors, nothing more annoying than realizing that you want to have a "lazy" code in a corner and that to do that you need to mark 300 functions above (hyperbole), I think that in that sense, C# at least manages to partially solve this with the possibility of blocking until you get a result, it wouldn't make a difference in terms of usability if, for example, the entire C# core library was asynchronous, because you can always use a .Result and block until having the result (not that it is the most performative or safest approach, of course, but sometimes it has its purpose to unify the worlds).
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
I think these are both good and bad thoughts mixed together, a portion of your audience that leans toward modern progressivism seems to have felt awful reading this, but frankly it's not nearly as bad. I would just say to that person to lower their expectations a little and seek to do these things not only to become better, but also because they are something that amuses you. Take a weekend and develop a totally different project and not related to the company you work for, read a trash popular fiction book, watch a horror B movie, make prototypes and prototypes of useless things and throw them away at the end , and also, be lazy, humanity wouldn't have gotten where it is if we didn't look for simpler ways to get the job done, these things are also part of becoming a better person.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
If you think of game design as a profession in itself, which involves but is not necessarily complete with being a programmer, then choosing to focus on all these skills will make you a good game developer. Of course, dividing your attention will bring you less development in more specific activities, such as specifically being a draftsman, musician, scenario designer, screenwriter or programmer, but that doesn't mean that you will be bad at these tasks, you just won't be as good as someone who focuses more on developing those skills in particular. It's a dilemma similar to the notion that a general practitioner is less able to efficiently practice specialized areas of medicine, certainly general practitioners are extremely capable of treating all people, but when you have a specific problem and you have the choice, choosing someone who specializes in your problem is likely to be a wiser decision, which does not disqualify the general practitioner or his skills.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3