General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

Vitaly L
Continuous Delivery
comments

Comments by "Vitaly L" (@vitalyl1327) on "Continuous Delivery" channel.

Previous
4
Next
...
All

@gauravtejpal8901 found a bootcamp "graduate".
1
oh, really? Any developer must master dozens of languages. Any capable developer must continuously create new small languages, because Language-Oriented Programming is by far the most powerful abstraction tool. A developer with only one language under their belt, especially such a crippled and ill-designed language as JS, is not a real developer. Want to be "full stack"? Master the entire stack underneath your level of abstraction. Starting with analog and digital electronics, HDLs, all the necessary elements of computer architecture, all the PLT-related mathematics, PLT itself, a deep understanding of compilation and interpretation methods available, a deep understanding of how operating systems work (and when and where to use them or ditch them altogether). Understand networking, from PHY levels to high level protocols, and know where you should be on this stack of abstractions depending on your goals. There's a lot of critically important knowledge there. Javascript, browsers and all that meh are not among even the tangentially impactful pieces of knowledge.
1
To summarise - the language you must be a native speaker of should be the language of mathematics. All the programming languages are just special cases of it, once you have a solid grasp of the real language of the universe.
1
@ApprendreSansNecessite the downsides of compiling to JS and alike is that the runtime itself is rather crappy (no integers, really? and a very intrusive GC), and, more importantly, if JS is your common denominator language, it limits what your static analysis can do (pretty much nothing for such an extreme dynamic language). The only reason to ever do such a thing is if your code must run in a browser. No point in running JS anywhere else.
1
@ApprendreSansNecessite I'm yet to see a single compelling argument for using the same language for different components of a system, be it "client side" and "server side" in a context of web development, or anything else. And the argument "our engineers are just not good enough and can only use one language" is really a bad argument. And yes, I'm aware that there are web developers who style themselves arrogantly as "full stack" developers. They need to be constantly reminded how thin and tiny their coverage of the tech stack is, and how much more they could have achieved if they were actually full-stack.
1
@ApprendreSansNecessite in a multi-language environment you're limited to an underlying target language semantics for your analysis. And if its semantics is designed to hamper any analysis attempts, you cannot prove anything about your system as a whole. Typescript does not help, as it's not a compilation target for any of the higher level languages you're talking about. Also, even Typescript does not remove the dynamic nature of the underlying language, so even a heavily annotated typescript code cannot really be reasoned about.
1
@ApprendreSansNecessite for me, it sounds like a weird design, when similar data processing happens in different parts of the system. For data model - yes, it can be the same while flowing through the system, but it does not mandate the same language that handles the data in any way. Validation is normally just a part of the data model. And things like data model, validation, etc., should be defined in a higher level (ideally, declarative) language anyway, and then translated into whatever language whatever part of the system is using. You're likely familiar with rudimentary forms of this approach employed in IDL and similar protocol / data model description languages. There's often dozens of languages involved, with a single data model in between them. I admit I stay away from anything related to web, so may be unaware of some of the rationalisation behind common design choices in that world. From far away, the whole web stack looks like it's massively overengineered and badly designed on all levels though.
1
@ApprendreSansNecessite I believe this sort of behaviour still falls under data model specification and must be declarative. When it is some ad hoc low level code manually screwed together, it is unavoidably a huge source of errors and worse. I never cared at all about anything web. But I did a lot of work with distributed systems shuffling huge variety of data around, including very sensitive data in financial applications (that also included high frequency trading). Every single time, some form of IDL was the only reasonable solution, and sharing validation / processing code between system components was never a meaningful design choice.
1
@davidjulitz7446 you do not need to prove the whole system, just the distributed communication part. This is what TLA+ is for. And this way it'd quicly becone apparent that there exist a number of conditions where network lag or breakdown compromise transactions integrity. Every communicating system must go through such a proof. And we do it for quite complicated, heavily distributed designs.
1
@tonymerrett I've been building fault-tolerant systems for over 30 years.
1
Did it occur to you that you can be the problem here? It is very hard to find developers in the EU, the shortage is very obvious.
1
@tacorevenge87 France, Spain, Germany. Outside of EU the market is very lively in Switzerland and the UK.
1
This is why eDSLs are better than pretty much anything else. The most readable code is the code free from leaky abstractions, and you can do it only with language-oriented programming.
1
 @wreynolds1995 as an engineer with a degree in physics - absolutely, anyone with such a background will have no trouble passing the exams to become a chartered engineer.
1
 @wreynolds1995 UK is not one of the sane countries, anyone can call themselves an "engineer" there.
1
@langhamp8912 yep, that's my point exactly. Though I doubt you can teach the scientific method properly without using any of the hard sciences as a guiding example.
1
@nerdobject5351 not sure about zero wear and tear - sitting is the new smoking, after all. And RSI is real.
1
It can't even do guaranteed TCO. How can you FP with it?
1
also, this is where Literate Programming shines. When "ehy?" is a result of a few papers-worth reasoning, write this reasoning down alongside with the code the same way you'd write a paper.
1
@skyhappy first, let me reassure you, that you have no faintest understanding of the real world. It's pathetic, frankly, how code monkeys always run around rambling about the "real world", why they don't even possess a mental capacity to even start understanding it. Secondly, no, computer science is the most important science out there, binding all the other sciences together. It's the science of what computation is, and our universe is built on the notion of computation on many levels. You won't understand it, of course, I'm saying it here not for your benefit. I'm a nuclear physicist who had to turn to computer science, because there were no answers to my questions anywhere else. And only computer science could finally make all the pieces of the puzzle click in. And computer scientists are supposed to explore this branch of knowledge. Not write some pathetic crappy code, like your kind does. And I'm so glad I'll never have to work with primitive nobodies with overblown ego like you. That's another great feature of the current market, it's very picky, and it works exactly as intended, leaving your kind out of anything meaningful.
1
One have grey hair, and the other does not need little blue pills to perform.
1
@edgeeffect some languages were designed by PLTists, e.g., Scheme.
1
@jamesgood7894 a lot of cases when people were unable to express a simple idea even in a pseudocode (anyway, no reason to ask about any specific languages, this is not an important knowledge). Is it that much to ask? And I'm not talking about dumb and pointless intevriew questions like the infamous FizzBuzz or asking to implement a double-linked list, no. Just any kind of a problem with more than two steps in its solution.
1
@vincentvogelaar6015 LLMs do have reasoning abilities. Just give them a Prolog, and let them write, test and debug proofs.
1
@vincentvogelaar6015 apparently you do not understand how to use LLMs. They're not any different from our own minds - we cannot reason either, unless we use tools, such as formal logic. So give LLMs their tools - give them an ability to write down reasoning step by step, to verify the reasoning using formal methods (as in - make them write down the steps as HoL proofs or Prolog predicates). I'm using LLMs for solving engineering problems, and reasoning is a crucial part of it. Even very small models (like Phi-3) are perfectly capable of reasoning on a level beyond the capacity of an average engineer, when given the right tools and proper sandbox to test the ideas in (akin to our imagination). Also, LLMs perform the best when reasoning about things that were not in the training set. E.g., they write much better code in languages they've never seen - because they're forced to do it slowly, verifying every step, instead of churning out answers instinctively.
1
@vincentvogelaar6015 apparently you do not understand how to use LLMs. They're not any different from our own minds - we cannot reason either, unless we use tools, such as formal logic. So give LLMs their tools - give them an ability to write down reasoning step by step, to verify the reasoning using formal methods (as in - make them write down the steps as HoL proofs or Prolog predicates). Give them a sandbox to debug the proofs, just like you do with any other code. Provide a critical loop to make sure they did not miss anything from the formulation of the problem when translating it to a proof. I'm using LLMs for solving engineering problems, and reasoning is a crucial part of it. Even very small models (like Phi-3) are perfectly capable of reasoning on a level beyond the capacity of an average engineer, when given the right tools and proper sandbox to test the ideas in (akin to our imagination). Also, LLMs perform the best when reasoning about things that were not in the training set. E.g., they write much better code in languages they've never seen - because they're forced to do it slowly, verifying every step, instead of churning out answers instinctively.
1
@vincentvogelaar6015 youtube keeps deleting my answer for some reason. I'll try to make it shorter: in order to reason, LLMs must use tools, just like we do. Writing things down, visualising them, applying formal logic, you know, formally - and it all works really well with even the very small LLMs (like Phi-3). And LLMs perform the best on knowledge that was not in the training set, it's forcing them to slow down and reason in very small verifiable steps instead of generating an "intuitive" answer.
1
@vincentvogelaar6015 how is it not a reasoning, if this is exactly what humans do? With the result at least not worse, but often much better than human reasoning. You just give this autonomous agent loop with its toolbox a single, vaguely worded goal, and after some time and a lot of very small steps it will create a solution. Fully autonomously. Right now I'm using LLMs to design mixed signal circuits and mechanical parts this way. Just give them the goal, and they do the work. Including finding the datasheets for the required parts, creating and running simulations for things they're not certain about, etc.
1
@vincentvogelaar6015 see the Voyager paper for a rudimentary example of such a self-improvement. No need for further model training - there are more efficient ways of storing the accumulated knowledge.
1
There is never "too much calculus". The more - the better. But of course code monkeys will never understand why it's so important. You sound truly pathetic and revolting. I hope I'll never have to work with someone like you.
1
@ArchetypeLuna "clean code" is a fad popular among the lowest of the low code monkeys, not an essential skill. Unit testing is an obvious thing and details depend on the specific toolchain, so should not be taught in a generic course. It is better to teach formal semantics and proof theory instead, for there's too many code monkeys who put too much faith in unit testing where a formal proof would have been a much better guarantee.
1
@c00ckiez for the "real skills" you should have went to a trade school and then do an apprenticeship. Higher education is for the adults who can acquire the mundane lowly "real skills" on their own once they're given a fundamental knowledge and a robust framework for learning. You're pathetic, and I'm really glad I'll never have to work with someone like you. Luckily, all my co-workers are PhDs at least. You have zero chance of ever understanding why Laplace and Fourier and the rest of calculus would have moved you to a totally different level from the code monkey level you're permanently stuck in now. And you're a perfect example of why we have a shortage - too many useless code monkeys, and not nearly enough people who had guts to actually learn calculus.
1
Developers who do not use formal verification for critical systems are trash developers. There are no excuses. Ignorance is not an excuse. "Hard to find competent developers" is not an excuse. This industry is teeming with the wrong people who should have never been allowed anywhere close to programming - all those self-taughts, bootcamp "graduates" and such.
1
Complex-schmomplex, they built Horizon in a Visual freaking Basic 6, without ever even thinking about boring details like ACID. It was doomed to be a failure through and through, not just a "complex system with a few bugs".
1
@tongobong1 nah, a lot of companies are willing to pay well above the market just to get a mildly competent developer. Yet they struggle, there's just not enough developers and a lot of them are not primarily motivated by money so cannot be easily head-hunted out of their current jobs.
1
@kzelmer what a dumb take. The shortage is real and measurable.
1
@benisrood on a fact that it is very hard to find a single competent engineer, that companies viciously poach from each other, that recruiters call all the time and sound very desperate and offer obscene money. Everyone I know struggle hiring engineers.
1
@benisrood you can live in Barcelona and work for a company in the UK, or Switzerland, or USA, or wherever else pay is much better. This is exactly what I do, living in Barcelona on a UK-level income. Also, startups that I know in Barcelona offer way above 60k.
1
It is a systematic problem. If the industry is regulated, then both management and developers will have their hand tied, they'll have to do the right thing even if they really really want to ship crap to market asap. Incompetent developers are a problem - and regulations will weed them out. Incompetent management is a problem, and regulations will limit the damage they can cause.
1
@WhyteHorse2023 this is why this situation is so absurd - overproduction of juniors led to an unsustainable drop in average quality, made it nearly impossible to find those who are worth even trying to train, all the while experienced people retiring with nobody to replace them. If the junior pool was not so diluted with the wrong people it would have been much easier to train them into experienced engineers.
1
Many languages, some are good, some are mediocre, but none as awful as JS. I use C, C++, various flavours of Lisp (including Scheme), Tcl, Verilog, ocaml, and a few more, including even Fortran. Nothing is as ill designed as JS.
1
@bernardd yet, Borland Pascal compiled instantly woth no visible delay on an 8086.
1
 @PavelHenkin you could always safely distribute a hash. They were just some lousy code monkeys, they built a system on top of f-ng WiFi, obviously they never considered anything at all.
1
but imagine how fun it'll be if you'd do all these things with an actually capable language that does not cripple your creativity? Only people who had little exposure to the other languages and programming models can genuinely believe JavaScript is a right tool for expressing their ideas.
1
So, you really want to try to prove that there is no shortage? Really? Find me a few engineers who are not a total crap.
1
@arcomarco7131 Shortage is real - there are no engineers. How else can I prove it? It is far easier to prove an existence than non-existence. It takes on average 5 months and a hundred of interviews to get a new engineer. While you can easily prove that there is a lot of them, supposedly, readily available. And it is an experience of everyone I know. Less than one in a hundred is worthy of talking to, even less are actually hireable. And yet you insist that there is no shortage. Are you surrounded by hungry eager engineers who will switch jobs on a whim if offered an above the market compensation? Where is this paradise of yours?
1
@awmy3109 oh, how cute, to assume that IO is always a bottleneck and that you do not pay very dearly in performance for crappy abstractions and abstrraction-enabling features like GC and duck typing. You do pay, a lot, in orders of magnitude of performance difference.
1
@awmy3109 also, no, it is not a "fact" that IO is somehow always a bottleneck. This is something only a narrow minded web coder can say, who have no idea how huge the world outside of his pathetic web stack is.
1
@awmy3109 somehow my long answer got lost. Again: GC, dynamic typing, virtual calls are abstraction-enabling tools that harm optimisation and cost a lot in runtime.performance. This is why your JS is orders of magnitude slower than my C++.
1
@awmy3109 right, what a great argument! Since only JS is available in a web browser, JS is somehow now a great and performant language. Simply for a virtue of monopoly. Nice. But this is not what OP was talking about. This is how people with experience from outside of web see the web ghetto. Any time we take a closer look we recoil in disgust. This whole web thing is a pile upon piles of utter crap, and it should have never been like this. Also, people like you are very often guilty of not even trying to think if they really need to build a "web app". Turns out, very often they should not, but they still do, because this is all they know. A lot of time a native application is a far better solution. Even more often, no UI at all is even better, yet, the people with such a severe professional deformation fail to see it. Now, you claimed JS is somehow performant (we know it's not, not even close). You claimed you don't pay for abstractions in such a language. Wrong again, you pay dearly. Admit you're wrong and stop moving the goal posts.
1

Previous
4
Next
...
All