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

  1. Troll reacting to a troll video - that's meta!
    116
  2. ​ @MrEnsiferum77 developers who did not use version control systems in the 90s were trash developers not worthy of being mentioned. We had CVS ffs, and RCS before tbat.
    110
  3. There's a worryingly massive overlap between people who code in javascript and people who have no idea how binary floating point works. Almost as if web development attracts the most unscrupulous types.
    69
  4.  @redpillsatori3020  logic IS mathematics
    55
  5.  @possumkeys  and these days even assembly can be too high level and too distant from the actual microarchitecture of your CPU. Learning an assembly on an 8bit MCU can be far more beneficial for understanding of how things work than learning an x86_64 or aarch64 assembly.
    54
  6. Saying that one should not learn to code because there are LLMs that code is the same as saying you should not learn mental arithmetic because calculators exist.
    53
  7. I believe the funny myth of 10x engineers appeared simply because of the existence of the 0.1x engineers (thanks to all those bootcamps and alike).
    52
  8. Switch to hardware design, then you'll have over 10 hours builds and multiple days worth of tests running.
    51
  9. In my experience, anyone claiming to be a 10x developer turns out to be an a-hole who make it impossible for anyone to work with him, so he's the only one producing code while the rest of the team recoils in disgust.
    38
  10. Interesting, you really seem to believe that C is a very low level language. It is not. Not any more. Not since PDP11. It is very far from how real CPUs work.
    36
  11. I can sort of see where he's coming from. As a primarily hardware engineer, I do indeed feel this frustration - having all the cool formal verification tools in hardware and seeing software world being so reluctant to adopt even the most primitive forms of it makes one ponder about the future of the software engineering. Software engineering is so resistant to become, well, an actual engineering, where responsibility and safety is a key.
    33
  12. I'm so glad I don't care about cloud computing at all.
    30
  13. ​ @SolidWorksMastery-hr4sg can you imagine what kind of utterly crappy job it is if a bootcamp graduate is fit for it?
    29
  14. And there are things that C does better than C++. For example, restrict keyword - there is no portable C++ equivalent.
    28
  15. enshittification started with Python and JavaScript replacing Perl and Tcl.
    27
  16. Zig does not have procedural macros, Rust does. Any language without procedural macros is infinitely inferior.
    24
  17. I doubt an experience of a java monkey amounts to anything valuable though...
    24
  18. A valid C++ implementation is below 0.2s. Does not look good for JVM, does it?
    23
  19.  @Asto508  Yeah, sure, find me an equivalent of MISRA-C tooling first, then I'll switch.
    20
  20.  @devnexen  I am talking about proper Lisp-style macros, not that preprocessor abomination. Rust procedural macros are much closer to the proper macros.
    16
  21.  @arianghorbani1305  for some people 2+2 is hard. So what? It means they tried to memorise what 2+2 is, instead of understanding Peano axioms. Simple things are objectively simple. If they're hard for someone, they're either dim, or someone deceived them and gave an incorrect definition of that simple thing, making it needlessly complicated.
    16
  22. Inspired? Inspired?!? I say it's just a blatant plagiarism, C just copied javascript and removed all good parts from it.
    16
  23. ​ @teckyify  it can and will happen, but javascript coders are not even aware of memory leaks they are causing, while industrial C programmers have MISRA C. And, anyway, all such things must be coded in PLC languages.
    15
  24.  @baxiry.  nope, it does not. Macros are much more than just some compile time computation. Macros are for implementing embedded DSLs, i.e., macro is a compiler that runs in compile-time, and does all the things a standalone compiler can do, including arbitrary optimisation.
    14
  25. There is a natural difficulty in many real-world problems. When faced with such, both cowboy engineers with a tendency to overcomplicate things and superficially learnt monkeys are equally helpless, and only those with a thorough findamental knowledge thrive.
    14
  26. Sounds like a hideous idea for a sadistic reality show.
    14
  27. exactly, I don't remember any data strucutre questions 10 or 15 or even 20 years ago. That's likely solely for freshly out of university, since what else would you ask them anyway?
    14
  28. It is the LinkedIn equivalent of what spells as "School of Hard Knocks" and "University of Life" on some other social networks.
    13
  29. Ever seen a rotating drum memory?
    12
  30. Is not it a mandatory rite of passage for any rust convert?
    12
  31.  @bitwize  LLVM IR - yes, sure. WASM - absolutely not, it does not even allow irreducible control flow.
    12
  32. I worked with people who earned a million or over a year, who dropped out of this career to burnout (not software development, though, finance). I understand them. "Early retirement" is still years ahead, but youth is going away and never coming back.
    11
  33.  @baxiry.  to clarify - the critical part comptime is missing is functions that take AST as an input, and they don't produce AST as an output. Also, no way to access the current compilation context, making this thing inferior and pretty much useless in comparison to proper Lisp-style macros that Rust is (nearly successfully) trying to emulate.
    11
  34.  @kanji_nakamoto  Huh? It does not allow to do things in a more succint way. Any proper meta-language is infinitely more expressive than a fixed language. A meta-language, language with proper macros, can be easily turned into any language imaginable. It is an infinite power. It is funny when people even compara meta-languages with simple languages. Zig does not allow to construct efficient embedded DSLs, which makes it severely less productive than any language that have proper macros.
    11
  35.  @alexanderlanz9712  The fun part here is that although safety requires an upfront investment, it cost less in a long run. Bad quality code piles up problems and explodes complexity until you cannot maintain it any more. High quality code causes much less problems in long run. Too bad code monkeys very rarely think long term.
    11
  36. even a puny little frontend developer can write a code that hurts people. My eyes and my aesthetic feelings are hurt almost every time I browse web. Not to mention my time wasted on navigating badly designed UI with too mamy steps to do simple things. All developers must be regulated and treated the same way as doctors and civil engineers.
    11
  37. ​ @svuvich everything. Chosing a platform based on familiarity instead of purely techical characteristics is a sign of incompetence.
    10
  38.  @moonasha  machine code is a representation of the same assembly, you're not learning anything new from it. Instructions are still going to be executed in extremely convoluted ways, not in a sequence you wrote them, split into microinstructions you don't even have a chance to know anything about. The better way to learn is to dissect something like nand4tetris, my4th or Ptoject Oberon, where you'll understand exactly how instructions are executed. Or, if assembly is as low as you want to get, do it with some very simple MCU.
    10
  39. What "todays CPUs"? Try cortex-M0, which does not even have an FPU. Also, even the fattest modern CPUs don't have a pipelined FDIV - so in rare cases where you have many square roots in a row, you won't get any reasonable throughput, and latency of FDIV is still dozens of clock cycles.
    9
  40.  @jorper2526  boot loop on a failed kernel is 100% on Microsoft. A proper OS would have reverted to a last known good root fs state (and a last good bootloader state). Not to mention a watchdog that must detect boot loops.
    9
  41. ​ @jordixboy some people have an ability (and a desire) to build systematic knowledge, starting from the first principles and leaving no gaps. The others just memorise (believing they "learned" something) a random assortment of factoids from some easy high level subjects, and then they get confused when presented with a slightly harder problem or just something new. Don't be like them. Learn things properly. Even if it hurts.
    9
  42.  @anon1963  this is a wrong analpgy.
    9
  43. Tomorrow the system need to actually work, today it is enough to dazzle VCs with a shiny MVP that does nothing of a substance. Yes, sure, don"t solve that tomorrows problem, it is scary.
    8
  44. I think people who feel they're competing with self-taughts, bootcamp graduates and stochastic parrots are simply in the wrong industry and should have never been here in the first place.
    8
  45. Going top down is an extremely bad idea and it is going to leave you with an awful lot of gaps that you won't even be able to detect, making you very prone to Dunning-Kruger.
    8
  46.  @possumkeys  if the car breaks down the guy who built it waits for mechanics just like the others, but knowing how did it break and how to fix it if only he had his workshop with tools.
    8
  47. There is a lot of very simple optimisations giving you a good enough baseline. Convert your IR to an SSA, and this alone will give you tons of useful optimisations alnost for free. There are hard things, like loop fusion, polyhedral analysis, etc., but you can get a long way without ever needing them.
    7
  48. SQL lost its mathematical roots. It is not a complete relational algebra. If you want a pure relational algebra, it's Datalog, and it's much better than SQL in all possible ways.
    7
  49.  @momofomomofo  their update process is an utter crap and those who designed.it.are criminally negligent. And Microsoft is equally liable here for not making overlay updates.a default. They don't even have an overlay fs to start with!
    7
  50. Unpopular opinion: the vast majority of people who believe they experience this "impostor syndrome" are impostors indeed, and they're right to feel inadequate. Painting it as an "impostor syndrome" is their coping, nothing else.
    7
  51.  @DemiImp  yet, C does not teach you how computers work. C is too far away from hardware. Yes, it worth learning, as its abstract model is useful, but one should not stop there.
    7
  52.  @xelspeth  Both C and Java are eager, imperative, structural, both having statements and expressions, both having very primitive (and very similar) type systems. Nothing fundamentally different. Compare that to, say, a lazy functional language, or to a total language, or even the eager languages of the ML family, or meta-languages with AST macros, or Prolog. That'd be worlds apart. But C and Java are almost the same on this scale.
    7
  53. Linq is sort of meh when you think of all the Datalog eDSLs.
    7
  54.  @Fiercesoulking  who would run Office on an infrastructure-critical machine?
    6
  55. Printf debugging is limited indeed. Use proper logging instead, with multiple tiers of logging. It'll serve as an extra layer of documentation for your code and can be toggled by simply setting an environment variable.
    6
  56. Sadly, even C cannot be called a cross-platform assembly. It's too far detached from the actual ABI details, for example.
    6
  57. Not to mention immutable root fs and a/b boot, which all mature OSes do, but windows somehow is incapable of...
    6
  58.  @LukasCobbler  I can recommend Project Oberon - a minimalistic computer built from scratch, with an OS and compiler also built from scratch and still small enough for one person to comprehend in a few months.
    6
  59.  @anon_y_mousse  in the real world you must prove correctness too. But of course CRUD coders won't ever get anywhere close to applications that need this kind of rigour.
    6
  60. Eager vs. lazy, simple and powerful module system (still, I'd prefer SML), portable bytecode implementation and highly efficient native compilers for major platforms, quite a bit faster than GHC.
    6
  61.  @jordixboy  how many bootcamp or self-taught surgeons or civil engineers you know?
    6
  62. Also CrowdStrike - try to shut down ClownStrike parody site with DMCA. Because reasons.
    6
  63. Not really compatible with the languages that have default argument values and/or named arguments.
    6
  64. 50% of the stackoverflow users who took part in the survey. Not sure it's really representative of the entire developers population.
    6
  65.  @thebluriam  these days most of the systems are very complex and contain multiple parts, some are software, some purely hardware, and there is very little tools available for simulating such systems. Try to find a decent mixed signal simulator that will simultaneously let you debug software running on an MCU and debug how an anaolog circuit will respond to this software behaviour, all in properly simulated time. So, until we have such simulators, the only real way to debug such systems will be to run them physically, in real time, and then collect as much data as you can while they run - pass all the trace data through available pins if you have any, even blink LEDs and record slow-motion video (I did it a few times, was quite fun), use analog channels to log more data... What is not possible in such scenarios is to pause system at any moment you like and inspect it with a debugger. And these are systems this world runs on - dozens to hundreds of MCUs in any modern car, MCUs running a lift in your building, MCUs in medical equipment in your hospital, etc. It means, if we want to sustain the very foundations of our civilisation, we should not train programmers who might eventually end up supporting such systems with an emphasis on interactive debugging. Much better to teach everyone debugging the hard way, and only then tell them that there's such a thing as a debugger that can be handy if your system is not time-sensitive and if all the usual debugging methods failed. Not the other way around. So, my point is, the hard methods should always be the default, interactive debugging as only a last resort. We'll have better developers this way.
    6
  66. Including nasal demons. Especially nasal demons.
    5
  67. Using regular expressions is a marker of incompetence, so the lack of tests is just a cherry on a top, and is as expected from the incompetent developers.
    5
  68.  @svuvich  reading comprehension issues much? You're evidently not a competemt engineer. Again, learning time is a negligible fraction of a total development time, therefore how quickly you will deliver depends.primarily on technical characteristics of the tool. Learning time should not affect the result at all. There are so many wrong people in this industry these days, who should have stayed away....
    5
  69. I never had any good experience with NSight. And it's not really a debugger, it's just a way to access performance counters, something akin to gperf for CPUs. My most fulfilling experience with debugging a GPU code was when I had a complete RTL model of the said GPU running in Verilator, and I could instrument the hardware as much as I like to monitor code performance for my specific use cases. Obviously, if you're not the GPU vendor, this option is not for you...
    5
  70.  @purpasmart_4831  sadly, neither C nor Zig have procedural.macros, and language without procedural macros is inherently inferior. Hopefully someone will fork Rust....
    5
  71. You're doing it wrong. Give it a set of constraints, a sandbox to play with, a lot of tools (such as SMT solvers, proof assistants, data analysis tools, computer algebra systems, etc.) and then it'll converge on a very optimised and dense design, matching what the best human developers are capable of.
    5
  72. And those business requirements are algorithms. Your working applications are built of algorithms. But these algorithms are high level, big and complex. You cannot ask to "translate business requirements into working applications" in a 40 minutes interview. So the only way to assess if you can do it is to ask you to construct some small and simple algorithm instead, more fit for the time scale of the interview.
    5
  73. Libraries and ecosystem only matter to the glue "programmers" who just bolt libraries together. They are not needed anyway and will be replaced with stochastic parrots. Real engineers care much less about any third party libraries and frameworks.
    5
  74.  @brinckau  Curious that Fabrice Bellard is mentioned every single time 10x is discussed. Like he's the only example people can think about. A one in a billion genius (deservedly so). Yet, every freaking bodyshop with 20 employees boasts of hiring 10xers. There is only one Fabrice Bellard out there. There are no other people like him. Certainly not thousands, not hundreds, not even dozens.
    5
  75. Software complexity does not match the functionality complexity most of the time. Pretty much every single bit of software you can name can be implemented orders of magnitude simpler without losing a single bit of functionality.
    5
  76.  @anon_y_mousse  and reducing the implementation to pure lambda (or, even better, combinatory logic) is one of the easiest ways to prove things. Luckily, nothing stops you from doing it with even a pretty heavily imperative code. But as an intermediate representation, a curried CPS is one of the most powerful and easy to reason about forms. Your source language does not really have to support currying, it's all down to intermediate representations.
    5
  77.  @YMAS11  Languages can be classified on many dimensions, and choice of dimensions that matter is somewhat arbitrary. One dimension is level of abstraction, it's the most well known classification but most people still get it wrong. On this axis, languages go from low level to high level, where low level is their operational semantics being close to some perceived view of the real hardware (talking about the real hardware makes no sense due to its massive complexity, so it's some abstract mental model, some RISC-y machine code). From this extreme languages go to higher levels, with operational semantics being more and more steps removed from small step semantics of the machine code. C, Java, Python - they are all very close to the low level side of this axis, as they have very explicit control flow, mostly explicit memory handling, explicit order of execution, and all use the same structural programming for expressing this low level control flow. The higher you go on the levels of abstraction ladder, the less obvious control flow is, and it can become entirely undefined for very high level languages. They can have no tools for explicit control flow whatsoever. SQL or Datalog can be common examples of such. Some languages allow to cheat and place themselves anywhere arbitrarily on this abstraction level axis. It's the meta-languages, with proper macro metaprogramming capabilities that allow you to add constructs with any, arbitrarily complex semantics to the language, turn the host language into any other language you can imagine. Rust belongs to this group - as it provides procedural macros that can turn the simple low-level Rust into, say, a very high level, optimised SQL. Now, there are many other dimensions for classification, type systems among the most common ones. All of the common low level languages either use a very simple ad hoc type propagation and very loosely defined subtyping, or have entirely dynamic typing. More complex type systems - including Hindley-Milner typing of the ML family and Miranda-Haskell-etc., Sytem F typing, dependent typing of Agda, Coq and alike - they all don't fit well into the low level, explicit control flow, structural programming model of the common languages. Another dimension, which I decline to consider important, is the typical way the language is implemented. Natively compiled, natively compiled but with a complex runtime and managed memory, JIT-compiled with some intermediate representation (such as CLR or JVM), bytecode-interpreted such as Python or Perl - all such details are immaterial and it was shown many times how easily languages can be implemented on top of any of these models regardless of the other qualities of the language - see QuakeC, PyPy, multiple Java AOT implementations, etc. As for algotrading - well, it exists, it makes money, it pays really well... What else can I say? I'm also grateful to it for driving higher end FPGA prices down due to growing demand.
    5
  78. I develped once, but hangover was so awful, I decided never to develp again.
    5
  79. "Real time", really? Debuggers disrupt the time behaviour of your code, there is no way around it. If your code runs on a number of communicating devices simultaneously, (e.g., a few MCUs communicating over i2c or CAN), no freaking way attaching a debugger to any of them will be of any use at all. Just learn to debug the right way, without any of those debuggers. Even if debugging involves flipping a pin and connecting an oscilloscope to it. In my well over 30 years career I never had a singe use case for a debugger. Not even once.
    5
  80. Or any distributed system. Or, even worse, hard real-time distributed system.
    5
  81. I always use the most suitable tool for the problem I'm solving. Yet, I cannot think of a single problem that I may ever face that would have warranted using Go. Of course I'm very biased - I don't have many use cases for languages with a GC, as most of the things I do are real-time. I can think of a couple of cases where I'd use Rust instead of C++ though, so for me Rust beats Go. Another issue I have with Go is that it's a very low level language, much lower level than Rust and C++. Why? Because Rust have proper AST macros. C++ have Turing-complete templates. Go got nothing. Not a single tool for building higher levels of abstraction. And any meta-language (even tiniest of Forths) is infinitely more powerful than any fixed language.
    4
  82. There is a massive shortage of engineers suitable for hard and meaningful jobs. If there were engineers available, there will be jobs for them. Sadly, you cannot just take a web coder and make him into an aerospace, automotove or industrial robotics engineer.
    4
  83.  @Nxnn132  again, logic IS mathematics. More so, programming IS mathematics. You cannot do logic or programming properly until you understand thoroughly the mathematics underneath them.
    4
  84.  @mr.mister311  so, you still don't understand what you can do with the proper macros. With this primitive abomination of Zig you cannot implement composable eDSLs With a proper CL-style macro I can wrap any arbitrarily complex compiler, pass an AST to it and get an AST as an output, all while reflecting on the context of the underlying compiler. Languages that cannot do it are worthless.
    4
  85.  @AdroSlice  ah, yes, forgot about this kind. Also very unpleasant and they have no place in this industry. This brand of "10x" developers first invest time and effort in building incomprehencible, unmaintainable pile of code, and then they're the only ones who can do anything with it, securing their employment for years and looking "10x" to the unsuspecting management and junior colleagues.
    4
  86. Right. SQL is but a sad shadow of Datalog.
    4
  87. Not even self-driving - see the Toyota breaking bug.
    4
  88. So, you're trying to say that in the past developers were competent, but now it is a beautiful egalitarian field where complexity is removed from the developers education and manifests now in the overengineered crap those egalitarian uneducated developers create? Fully agree.
    4
  89.  @apl1568  there is always a one in a million genius who does not need formal.structure to get systematically educated. But you'rw not Carmack. And you're not me. You cannot become an engineer without someone holding your hands.throughout your education.
    4
  90.  @filippomenchini  even algorithms and data structures are affected significantly by the language properties. See, for example, how different the cost analysis theory is for purely functional data structures (e.g., as in C. Okasaki book) from the mutable data structures. I'd put theory of computation first, before everything else, and from there it's natural to move to algorithms and data structures, to formal languages, to computer architecture, all on top of a solid and coherent basis. As for linguistic relativism, Dijkstra had something to say about consequences of starting with Basic :)
    4
  91.  @An7Hoang  he did program C, a language not that different from Java. This guy have no experience whatsoever, he knows just one language (considering C and Java almost the same), no experience in understanding semantics fudamentally different from what he already know. His opinion is quite worseless.
    4
  92.  @xelspeth  of course Python is not too different from Java and C. Another low level imperative eager language. Looks like it's the only kind of languages code monkeys can comprehend.
    4
  93.  @randerins  funny generation of bootcamp "graduates" who now believe that web is UI. Ever heard of SWING?
    4
  94. A 17 years old must be in an education, not in employment. It's not an ageism, it's just making sure we're getting adequate workforce which is not teeming with incompetent dropouts.
    4
  95. The web was better when it did not exist. Went downhill since then.
    3
  96. A lot less people went into this field motivated by money or glamour, only those who had a genuine interest (speaking of late 80s/early 90s). Of course, even then this "minimal viable learning" attitude existed, just was not so widespread.
    3
  97.  @dusanknezevic9072  parsing speed have not been a meaningful design consideration for decades, so I cannot see a single use case for regular expressions, ever. And, yes, I agree that it is particularly insane to put them in a kernel module.
    3
  98. A hedge fund can be just as challenging as SpaceX, and they exist pretty much everywhere. Automotive and industrial automation, medical, etc, there is a ton of meaningful jobs.
    3
  99. Programmer is not the one who write code. Programmer is the one who interrogate the users / stakeholders of all kinds and translate their mental gibberish into a coherent view of what need to be done. AI is not going to make this task much easier.
    3
  100. Even better, don't pick a framework for frontend stuff, and ignore all the web insanity altogether, frontend and backend alike. You'll have a more fun and fulfilling career this way.
    3
  101. ​ @litpath3633 degree is a way to ensure that the graduates at the very least did not skip the basics. Because "self-educated" always do, their knowledge is full of holes.
    3
  102. 99.5% of my code is generated by a compiler. So what?
    3
  103.  @kodingamedev  yes, Nim is a worthy language, macros done the right way.
    3
  104.  @camdustin9164  you don't understand macros then. A language with macros can be turned into ANY language you can imagine. Any feature that exist and even those not yet invented can be added, or a language can be completely turned into something else. Therefore, any language with macros is a superset of all existing and not yet existing languages. Any language without macros is nothing in comparison. Now, if you managed to live your entire life without a need for macros, you're programming wrong. Badly wrong. You avoided the most powerful tool for building abstraction. And, no, language popularity is not a measure of language quality in any way, because vast majority of programmers are incompetent monkeys.
    3
  105.  @j.trades9691  what performance losses? DSLs are zero cost abstractions, unlile pretty mucb everything else. And, unlike everything else, DSLs allow to eliminate complexoty. Not just reduce, but elimiminate. If your problem can be expressed in terms of compilation (and DSL methodology is exacrly what allows to discover if it can be done), it is a solved problem. Compilation can be split into a sequence of trivial steps, as trivial as you want, thus eliminating complexity altogether. As for learning curve - see above on complexity.
    3
  106.  @maelstrom57  name a single good thing that appeared in the standard since 1.6. Everything that followed made it just more complex and less suitable for static analysis.
    3
  107. How is it confusing? Your theoretical GFLOPs are pointless if you cannot feed the new data fast enough. And memory bandwidth available shows you that you indeed cannot - hence this 5.25 GFLOPs of data in + data out. And even this is probably not sustainable. Would have been hilarious to watch Primeagen discover all the scrambling, space-filling curves, local bank-wise distribution, etc. that are used in image processing algorithms to improve cache locality.
    3
  108. @MariusSchwendtmayer  I am the one who is using the trash web "developers" produce, so I have all the moral rights to mock them as much as I wish, as I am on the receiving end of their institutional incompetence.
    3
  109. Just use proper static code analysis tools to map the flows. No need to watch them step by step in a debugger.
    3
  110.  @RedstoneSea5124  yes, any LSP based mode can do it.
    3
  111. Is not it a point of this whole challenge? To optimise the memory access pattern (it need to write, not just read, and the output may not fit L3)
    3
  112. LLMs can solve problems far better than the vast majority of humans already.
    3
  113. ​ @septuleptum garbage in, garbage out. The entire web foundation, all the w3c standards, including JS itself, are utter garbage, so no matter how hard one try to build something pure or to create a meaningful framework, they all end up producing pile of crap. Nothing will ever save web from overengineering. And the quality of the web "developer" hordes does not help.
    3
  114. Just stop this backend/frontend nonsense, get back to local UI applications. Web is a massively overengineered pile of dung, and there is no saving it.
    3
  115.  @DrQuantumInfinity  Huh? Quantum physics is a textbook example of how the right language and the right abstractions simplify an insanely complex thing into something uttterly trivial. Bra and ket rules.
    3
  116. ah, how cute, web coders think that anything that is not web is a "niche". Look, if your precious web suddenly disappears, the world will just become a little better, and that's all. If, say, MCUs disappear, civilisation will collapse.
    3
  117. well, developers who build on top of vast third-party "frameworks" are just doing it wrong. In the vast majority of cases using a third party dependency is rather a liability than help, and can hardly be justified. The programming culture went down the gutter in the recent decades, with developers thinking it's acceptable to drag dozens or even hundreds of third party dependencies for even tiniest of functionality. It's all utterly disgusting. So, yes, attitude towards debuggers is a good marker of what culture programmer is more aligned with, and yes, I'm using this as an interview question to filter out undesirables.
    3
  118.  @brinckau  people like Bellard are so far on the tails of distribution that it does not even matter. You cannot possibly hope to ever see one. Also, this is not a normal distribution.
    3
  119.  @monad_tcp  of course, the whole point of MISRA C is that the entire code base must conform. If you have a tainted part, it breaks safety guarantees for the rest. In automotive and aerospace it is very often a requirement, no tainted code is allowed, no matter what.
    3
  120. found a pathetic flaturd
    3
  121.  @leisiyox  always thought that Prime is, like, the embodiment of the average developer - he's doing web and all that. That's why I find his streams interesting, it's like the voice of the regular people.
    3
  122. Cope more! Reality will bite.
    3
  123. Why cannot you push boundaries and explore weird stuff in your day job?
    3
  124.  @sumansaha295  sorry, mate, I'm afraid it's you who have no idea what you're talking about. C and Java may seem different only to those who don't know anything else. Both are eager-order imperative languages, both relatively low level. Rust, on the other hand, was drawing quite heavily on the ML family, which is, in turn, worlds apart from the likes of C and Java.
    3
  125.  @RotatingBuffalo  as for macros in C, no, they're not actual macros, and they're not really part of the language, preprocessor in C was always very separate thing. Compare that to procedural macros in Rust, or to C++ templates.
    3
  126.  @Aethenthebored  they are similar in all possible ways, and this is exactly why code monkeys have no problems moving between those languages, as tbey are all one language in different dressings. And when they are confronted with an actually different language, aa with the post we discuss here, they have hilarious meltdowns.
    3
  127.  @HrHaakon  lol, then Excel "macros" are macros too. But still they are not the macros in a PLT sense, just like C "macros" are not called macros in PLT. Anyway, in a practical sense, anyone with an experience with C "macros" have no idea what real macros are and how to use them, and therefore is going to be baffled by Rust procedural macros, or by Common Lisp macros, or by R5RS hygienic macros, or by C++ template system.
    3
  128. ​ @theheadpriest look, I understand that PLT is hard and that code monkeys do not even study it in the first place, but yes, imperative eager languages with separate statements are pretty much all the same. You're confused because you don't know of any other types of languages to begin with. When you look from a perspective of Agda or even Prolog, all the statement-based languages are indeed the same.
    3
  129.  @Legac3e  yep, and this is exactly what is not happening in the industry. And if I am to chose between regulating the crap out of everyone and not eegulating at all, since selective regulation can be very hard to apply, I am for the former.
    3
  130.  @Legac3e  exactly, if we have to pay by slowing down the pace of churning out software (most of which was not necessary in the first place) for making less likely the incidents like Toyota breaking, Postoffice sub-master scandal, 2019 NHS trusts cryptolocker scandal, the recent air traffic control shambles, etc. - it's a tiny price to pay. Also, you never know where the software will end up. The coders who wrote the Postoffice system were mere code monkeys crapping out very regular CRUD. They screwed up even there, and it resulted in many real people deaths and broken lives. You do not have to work on a high risk control software to be able to cause massive damage, a mere CRUD can kill.
    3
  131.  @SimonBuchanNz  not really, all variables were global all the way until Algol60 introduced recursion, then local variables became a separate storage class, allocated on a stack, or heap frame, or whatever method you use to implement recursive calls.
    3
  132. ​ @Salantor  Travis is a perfect example. 99% of what he's saying is an utter nonsense.
    3
  133. Youtube auto-mods delete comments nearly randomly.
    3
  134. Why do people try to drag Go into a C++/C/Rust discussion? Let Go compete with the other toy languages like Java, C#, Python and JS. It cannot be compared to C++, for it does not fit the niche where C++ is the most useful.
    3
  135. Huh? The very nature of problem solving is in finding ways to make it easier.
    3
  136. And what's wrong with having a C compiler to parse your headers? Parsing alone is not enough for any language, and compiler is exactly the tool that allows to introspect a code and do whatever you want with it. It's just plain wrong to ever use any other tool than the language compiler to parse its code. Also, writing a compliant subset of C compiler (only the parsing and typing frontend) is a relatively trivial task anyway.
    2
  137.  @TheRealXartaX  so, you have no idea what PEG or GLR is, yet you're soooo confident.
    2
  138.  @bigdogdman1  again, there is never a reason to use regular expressions, because there are always much better tools, for every use case.
    2
  139. Same thing for me - Emacs enrages me pretty much on a daily basis, but I could not find anything better than Emacs.
    2
  140.  @VuxGameplays  wtf are you talking about? I am in the field for more than thirty years, and never once touched the web, not a single tiny thing. Most of the people I work with also never did anything related to web. Why new developers believe that there is nothing but web?
    2
  141. It's a high time all kinds of web "developers" are automated out. They were never real developers anyway.
    2
  142.  @lukivan8  not in a slightest. If someone "can" do surgeons work, but don't have a licence, don't have obligations to a regulating body, don't have all the necessary personal responsibility safeguards, he's not a surgeon. He's an educated dilettante. Same goes for the engineers. It does not matter how hard you self-studied, how high your IQ is, but nobody will ever let you design a bridge if you're not a real engineer, with obligations to regulating bodies, with personal responsibility, etc. Now, same goes for software engineers too. I am not going to believe you if you'll claim you, personally, never were a victim of rogue software engineers. That you never suffered from using bad or outright dysfunctional software. You did. Everyone did. And nobody should have suffered, if only this field was properly safeguarded, like medicine and other engineering fields. It's a high time we kick out all the "self-taught" who cannot pass certification, that we introduce governing bodies, that we introduce personal responsibility for any consequences of the bad decisions made by software engineers.
    2
  143.  @lukivan8  Diploma does not matter much, true, what matters is professional regulation organisations and enforcing of personal responsibility. This is what differentiate classical engineering from the mess that the modern software engineering is.
    2
  144.  @suede__  another one with reading comprehension issues? Firstly, yes, any competent engineer must have a broad expertise in an array of languages. And, secondly, any decently sized project is way, way bigger than an effort of learning some language or framework. And, yes, a lot of really awful people are in this industry and I'd do anything to push them out. If the trash coders who wrote Horizon were gatekeeped away, people would not have suffered. Same goes for every single software failure that did cost a lot. This industry need professional standards similar to medical and civil engineering fields.
    2
  145.  @svuvich  primeagen is far from an example of a.competent engineer. And this industry absolutely needs a lot more gatekeeping. Ideally, civil engineering level of gatekeeping.
    2
  146.  @svuvich  that's a very good analogy. Just an hour ago I saw a guy being helped by paramedics after he fell down the stairs on the Tube. A tile on the stair edge was wobbly and he lost his balance, tumbled all the way down. Coders who wrote Horizon were also not much more than tilers, yet they caused immesuarable harm to hundreds of people. Quality standards are important regardless of how small the job is.
    2
  147. Yes. Pretty much everything in the modern computing is overengineered beyond any measure. And not a small part of this is thanks to the self-taught and otherwise insufficiently trained engineers who know no better.
    2
  148. You mean, a way to add 2 and 2 different from Peano? Right. Sometimes performance is more important than theoretical purity, that's why we have so many different ways to add 2 and 2.
    2
  149.  @gregorymorse8423  No, it is not 1 clock latency, there is not a single CPU that can do it. All the CPUs do 2 or 3 iterations, each made of a floating point multiply-accumulate.
    2
  150.  @123456crapface  you're funny. Real software deals with a real data, and you won't trust your real data to a cloud.
    2
  151. There is no such thing as a "general purpose" language.
    2
  152.  @RomeTWguy  a lot of people build their internal systems this way, myself included. There is no point in making a product out of it, since cloning such a product is trivial. Devin is a scam, it does not add any value because it is so easy to make a better system nearly for free.
    2
  153.  @decator_lol  you're not a very competent developer, evidently. If you fail to comprehend that eDSLs is a zero-cost abstraction and a compile-time optimisation that is impossible to achieve any other way.
    2
  154. For me the biggest argument against java is existence of any versions after Java 1.6. Java 1.6 was perfect. Everything that followed just ruined it, by thousand tiny cuts.
    2
  155. And where are all those magical millions of smart and motivated graduates? Cannot find any. Shortage is massive and there is no way to fix in in sight.
    2
  156. Setting up an environment for debugging can be a hellish task indeed. First, not to forget to expose JTAG (even as unpopulated placeholder) on your PCB. Then, get a compatible JTAG programmer/debugger device for your target platform. Than configure your IDE, whatever it is (STM32Cube, whatever) to work with this particular JTAG programmer. And only after that realise that you cannot get execution traces over JTAG in real time without breaking real-time behaviour of the code you're debugging, so you just resort to debugging via a couple of available GPIO pins connected to a logic analyser. Or even blinking LEDs and capturing them with a high speed camera.
    2
  157.  @BeefIngot  I'm commenting on the moment Primeagen got confused by using GFLOPS to represent memory throughput. This is not an optimisation question, not even a programming-related problem at all, it's a simple arithmetic. I'll tell you more, you can reason about floating point compute throughput in the GB/s units too, though it'll make much less sense. My point is, anyone who was not excluded from a primary school must have an instinct for unit conversion.
    2
  158. Lol. Good luck "setting breakpoints" if a few milliseconds disruption breaks the logic of the code completely. Guess debuggers are only useful for toy code like web and such...
    2
  159. Oh, a ranting Java monkey - that's funny. That guy never really programmed, and suddenly bumped into a real language, which immediately showed him how much out of his depth is is, that all 30 years of his experience was 1 year repeated over and over... Sad, really. Funny, but sad.
    2
  160.  @maushax  given that Crowdstrike is just a scam, as well as the entire "anti-virus" industry, they would not care about any proper practices, all they do is security theatre.
    2
  161. The logic is good, but it's coded in Malbolge...
    2
  162. Write in OpenCL then. C++ is not suitable.
    2
  163. I hope in 3. you meant homotopy type theory
    2
  164.  @isodoubIet  might be "useless" for trash code monkeys, who simply have no idea how to apply it and end up writing crap code. But for 100% of the real engineers type theory is essential.
    2
  165. what are you talking about? Both Vim and Emacs can easily do it.
    2
  166.  @complexity5545  hire humans to solve problems AI canmot solve. Hire humans that are smarter than AI (about 10% of.humans are).
    2
  167. This is the wrong way to use LLMs to write code. When done properly, it generates unique and not seen.before code.
    2
  168.  @luvincste  I'd posit that those who find this puny little git "unintuitive" and hard shoud not be in this industry in the first place.
    2
  169. Again code monkeying being confused with computer science. Sad.
    2
  170. There is an entire industry built around celebration of incompetence and mediocrity. All those bootcamps, "get programming in 6 months" courses, all the grifter youtubers selling the idea that self-taught engineers are not any worse than the proper ones. Let them fail. There's no point resisting, too much money is in this industry. All we can do is make sure none of those bootcamp "graduates" get accidentally hired, and mock them at every opportunity.
    2
  171. Guy Steele Jr, the author of the Java language specification, who also happen to be one of the core Scheme designers, bragged that with Java they dragged kicking and screaming coders half way to Lisp.
    2
  172. There's is SPIR-V though.
    2
  173. ESP32 is huge and far too powerful. Try ATtiny85 instead.
    2
  174.  @matta5749  sadly (for you), there is an objective measure of complexity. And pointers are among the easiest things on this metric. Those who find them confusing are either genuinely dim, or made a mistake of skipping the basics.
    2
  175.  @anon1963  control theory, some basic physics (Lagrangian mechanics), hard real-time programming, and of course some basic geometry (i.e., know what jacobian is). Not much, really, it's just the same programming as pretty much everything else.
    2
  176. With a better thinking and planning you can end up with hundreds of lines of code instead of hundreds of thousands.
    2
  177. It's very easy to see if the answer was memorised or invented on spot.
    2
  178. Ah, a trash developer world view, with equally trash results.
    2
  179. If you cannot reinvent the wheel when needed, you'll end up in bog boring CRUD jobs and will never do anything meaningful.
    2
  180.  @jolting  indeed I do, but Tcl is not only EDA, Tcl/Tk is perfect for everything.
    2
  181.  @jolting  worse is better. Nobody is using it because the vast majority of developers are ignorant dimwits, not because the twisted crappy web stack is objectively better than Tcl/Tk for GUIs.
    2
  182. Also, allows to weed out bootcamp "graduates".
    2
  183. Yet, most of the small models are now trained on a corpus, significant part of which is generated by larger models. It's not a problem at all. Problem is in a tight feedback loop, you cannot feed the model with a data it generated without adding a noise or some other filtering.
    2
  184. You cannot do it in programming either. It's just the employers desperation for engineers, they hire absolutely unfit and incompetent bootcamp grads and self-taughts, and the outcome is always disastrous, but they keep doing it regardless.
    2
  185. Travis is a grifter selling an illusion that self-taughts and bootcamp graduates have a chance to become engineers. Spoiler alert: they don't.
    2
  186. Pretty much every distributed system requires its own tailored protocol. But dimwit coders use some XML, json or whatever other abomination they can dig out of their arses.
    2
  187. code must be dense. As in, dense as natural language, without any irrelevant semantics leaking into it. It's sort of possible with FP (but far from ideal), and impossible with OOP.
    2
  188. Because it workd. Linus middle finger did more for the quality of NVidia drivers than all the open source contributions combined.
    2
  189. And another good reason to get at least some OCaml is Coq. One might point to Haskell + Agda, but for Coq there is CompCert, and it's a pretty good reason on its own.
    2
  190. Do Rule 110 next, it's even more fun.
    2
  191.  @KyleSmithNH  yes, it's better than sticking to even higher level than C indeed. What I'm saying is that it's not enough to get a comprehensive and systematic understanding. It's an important step, but not sufficient.
    2
  192.  @DemiImp  I am talking about generic knowledge, transferable across platforms, which can only be gained by studying one platform (probably a toy one) thoroughly. Things like ABIs, registers and register spills, caches, cost of memory accesss, atomics, memory operations order, pipelines, effect of scheduling on IPC, alignment, SIMD/SPMD, and many more
    2
  193.  @filippomenchini  Tell Sapir and Whorf that language is not important :) Yes, you need to learn fundamental CS. And it includes learning computer architecture too. Which implies learning the low level languages, HDLs and many more.
    2
  194.  @ItsJustJoseHere  Why? If you do it ONLY in your day job. No side projects.
    2
  195.  @RotatingBuffalo  and I find it hilarious that you think that there are macros in C.
    2
  196.  @RotatingBuffalo  Now, I said "F*", not "F#", but you did not notice. "F*" is miles away from the run of the mill Hindley-Millner that F# does and Rust tries to do. And let me remind you that we're talking about Rust here. Fairly mainstream language, with an ML-inspired type system, procedural macros, region analysis and a lot of other features from the "ivory tower" languages that you believe for no good reason to be impractical. C and Java have very, very similar use cases. I worked on a high-frequency trading system that was largely written in Java. Eating C cake, evidently. I also worked on pure C HFT systems, ones written in C++, ones with large parts implemented in HDLs. There was no real difference in what C and Java did in those scenarios. Just plain, predictable imperative languages with more or less low level control of the memory layout. Nothing fancy. Everything very much the same. Not to mention java running on microcontrollers or even NFC chips (already mentioned JavaCard). For all practical purposes, Java is not too far from C. Yes, GC can and will cause troubles, yes, you need to code in a certain way for real-time, but same applies to C, your malloc() and free() are also not allowed.
    2
  197.  @atiedebee1020  code monkeys are hilarious. Yes, it means exactly that, that Java and C are very much alike, to a degree that an ignorant code monkey can safely switch between thrm without suffering from a severely hurt ego. But when a code monkey is confronted with a significantly different language, such as Rust, they have meltdowns like the one we witnessed in the OP. Ia not it a good measure of similarity and difference to you? Have you ever implemented compilers for any of the languages from this fsmily? If you did, you'd know how similar they are, even the dynamic abominations like Python.
    2
  198.  @HrHaakon  it is not HM in a slightest, it is a simple linear type propagation. It does not unify type equations. And, no, external preprocrssors are no macros.
    2
  199.  @lucass8119  objects are not big deal at all (see GLib / gtk+) - just some puny syntax sugar for implicit v-tables. Reference types also not a big deal, as it's a subset of pointers (sans arithmetic). Generics - yes, the only mildly notable difference between C and Java, but still not warranting putting Java into a different class of languages. And yes, I'm piling the dynamically typed eager imperative languages into the same group too.
    2
  200.  @user-oe4id9eu4v  since youtube removes comments with links, I recommend to look up "real-time java" to see some allocation-free memory management techniques employed there. As for preprocessor - who cares if it's a part of a language spec, if it's a separate pass that have no knowledge of the underlying language whatsoever? And it can be used with other languages easily (e.g., I worked on a project where a C preprocessor was used on a Verilog code base extensively).
    2
  201.  @5dollasubwayfootlong  you evidently missed prettu much all of PLT education if you don't know the difference between the eager and lazy order. I'd recommend you to avoid embarrassing yourself and to stay away from topics that are so far beyond your comprehension. Learn some computer science first, then come back to discuss what is low level and what is not.
    2
  202.  @5dollasubwayfootlong  it does exist, while it does not have a right to do so. Preprocessors are abominable and should have never existed.
    2
  203.  @pcos2401  my "issue" is a lack of tolerance for stupidity and incompetence. Hardly an issue.
    2
  204.  @htspencer9084  It is a warranted arrogance. Facts matter. Truth matter. Feelings of those scolded for perverting the facts do not matter.
    2
  205.  @tiranito2834  one year of experience repeated 30 times is still one year of experience.
    2
  206.  @tiranito2834  kiddo, once again, you have no faintest idea of what you're babbling about. Ever tried specifying formal operational semantics for C and Java? You'll see very little difference between these two. If a presence of garbage collector makes.a language "high level" for you, you simply don't know anything at all about programming languages.
    2
  207. There is one thing that make C++ more powerful than Rust in some important use cases: there is a `goto` in C++. More so, a computed goto extension in most of the compilers that matter. No `goto` in rust, meaning - no efficiently compiled DSLs, no fast parsing, no threaded code, nothing.
    2
  208. Not to mention that a full set of MISRA C rules, powered by static analysis, is still by far the most safe development methodology possible, outclassing even SPARK, and leaving Rust and alike far behind.
    2
  209. The right question would be "why some people still use Linux, are they brain-damaged or something?"
    2
  210.  @Legac3e  in the Postoffice example the coders were writing a typical, boring piece of accounting software, and yet, the bugs they left there resulted in deaths and shattered lives of dozens of victims. Nobody could have known in advance that this was a work with a risk and responsibility levels close to the work of civil engineers.
    2
  211.  @Legac3e  P.S. regarding the barriers - it is not necessarily too bad. Civil engineering have all those barriers, yet kids still build Lego bridges. It should not affect learners and hobbyists.
    2
  212. Scala is quite big in hardware (e.g., see Chisel).
    2
  213. What is convenient with wasting so much display real estate on an information you need 0.01% of the time?
    2
  214. ​ @anon_y_mousse  mouse or not, it is still needed very rarely. I understand if it is a hidden tab that pops up when you hover that mouse thingy over, but a lot of people have this mostly useless information in front of them, like, 100% of the time, and it is weird indeed.
    2
  215. Yes, CS-illiterate people tend to prefer exceptions, purely on the basis of incompetence. CS-literate people may tolerate exceptions if runtime supports first class continuations.
    2
  216. And know what? You're right. Not necessarily Haskell, of course, but I tend to significantly downgrade my opinion of people I'm interviewing if they do not have at least some knowledge of a wide range of languages and paradigms. And if they do - I give them a chance to show off.
    2
  217.  @nitsujism  You need to maintain FPS for a human user. It's not going to break the logic of you're running at 0.001FPS instead - the rest of the system will behave the same way, user himself is an understanding part. For audio - again, it's quite easy to bag the data and to test on historic data, so real-time is not always required. Delay line is trivial to simulate. As for logging, of course it'll be extremely dumb to use io steams, to use any kind of system calls, etc. All the proper logging frameworks use lock-free communication from real-time threads to non-realtime logger threads, with potentially quite large buffers accumulating the logged data. I'm in no way advocating for just sprinkling printfs here and there, it'd be barbaric. As for segfaults, quite often simply running a debug build can make your segfault go away (or to mainfest somewhere else). Valgrind, or address sanitiser, or just a more elaborate logging would be far more precise in locating where exactly your data got corrupted (which can be very far away from where the segfault happened). Debuggers only delay finding the root cause of the problem by diverting your attention to unrelated code paths.
    2
  218. And, just like pretty much any other branch of this industry, self-inflicted complications. The real complexity of most of the problems is orders of magnitude below what bad engineers make them to be.
    2
  219. ​ @finnaplow  you still must learn all the basics despite many things being automated. You won't be able to reason wirhout an interdisciplinary fundamental knowledge, and AI will not replace this necessity.
    2
  220. Competence exists. Talent does not. And competence is not nearly as important as people want to believe it is.
    2
  221.  @ForeverZer0  I should have added that competence does not mater much above the certain point. Of course a dentist who does not know even the basics is useless. But some "10x" dentist who spend every weekend reading dentistry journals and training on stray cats is not any better than a regular average sufficiently competent dentist, and the real difference in their performance is in a way they're managed. A 10x dentist in a chaotic, undefunded practice is worse than an average one in a perfectly managed and well funded one.
    2
  222. ​ @daniilpintjuk4473  That's not always possible. Either your code is heavily concurrent, or you're wasting the hardware capacity. Having said that, yes, you must always do your best to avoid concurrency where it's not needed. E.g., a single FSM with predictable timing is better than an interrupt-driven system, as you can always reason about the worst case timing and make sure it meets the hard real-time requirements. No way to do it with concurrency present. Yet, there's a form of concurrency that's even harder to debug and that's pretty much unavoidable in any modern system - multiple communicating devices, e.g., a number of MCUs communicating, each can be perfectly single-threaded and sequential, but their interaction still only makes sense in real-time and cannot be paused.
    2
  223. I heard people call it "shekel" (with a soft 'l') a few times.
    2
  224.  @AlLiberali  not just Israeli, it is an ancient Sumeran word, and spelled very similar to "SQL"
    2
  225.  @SimonBuchanNz  lexical scoping also appeared first in Algol60, before it was all over.
    2
  226. They belong to very different flavours of functional programming.
    2
  227.  @OverG88  scala can hardly be called a functional language.
    2
  228.  @OverG88  you cannot call a language functional if you MUST use imperative features to use it. It can be a functional-first language, but not properly functional. The crippled JVM runtime limits the FP capabilities of Scala severely. A simple test for you: translate some arbitrarily complex tail-recursive code into CPS and then into SKI combinators (if you want a Y-combinator, define it via SKI). Execute the combinators with your allegedly functional language. If code still works - your language have a right to be considered probably a functional one. If there's no way an ad hoc translation would work without any funny tricks - then, sorry, it's not a functional language, period.
    2
  229. Well, it is the fastest.
    2
  230. You're missing a systematic, comprehensive knowledge and instead getting mythical thinking. If you don't know how things work and how everything is connected you're only capable of cargo cult programming.
    2
  231.  @T0m1s  do you mean you prefer lesser, crippled debuggers that cannot even be scripted? Or you're advocating for using LLDB, which is perfectly fine in most cases but still not quite there yet, not on par with gdb on features. Pretty much nothing is.
    2
  232.  @T0m1s  you should not program at all, if you cannot debug without a "user friendly interface".
    2
  233.  @T0m1s  it is only miserable if you don't know how to use it. When people with visual debuggers waste their time stepping through code, inspecting values, all that crap, GDB debugs for me unattended, run by scripts.
    2
  234.  @dolurosu  programmer who does not even know the basics? I doubt there's any value in such a programmer.
    2
  235. Well, you're among those who's going to be replaced by stochastic parrots and then whine about it. If you did not use the knowledge of algorithms in your job, you, most likely, were doing it wrong.
    1
  236. RL in a nutshell.
    1
  237.  @josevargas686  indeed, languages with built-in eval at least allow runtime metaprogramming. There are even some hygienic macro implementations for JS.
    1
  238. I'm just dragging my .emacs from more than 20 years ago nearly unchanged wherever I go, did not ever feel a need to refine it further...
    1
  239. Not all the compilers. Only those made before 21st century, and those made by people who lived under a rock for the last 20 years.
    1
  240.  @PassifloraCerulea  lexing is outdated, lexerless parsing is better on so many levels. People use PEG or GLR to parse these days, both are lexerless and allow different tokens in different contexts (as in, no tokenisation is needed at all).
    1
  241. Not just javascript, the whole stack of web technologies is an overengineered pile of trash that should have never existed. Imagine an alternative universe where instead of browsers we had sandboxed Tcl/Tk execution environments?
    1
  242. It is a crappy way to generate boilerplate though. Declarative DSLs are much better.
    1
  243. I thought ADHD would make them fail in ever delivering anything, getting bored half way through. Programmers need far more focused and attentive attitude.
    1
  244.  @souleymaneba9272  no matter how many years of experience self-taughts add to their lack of fundamental knowledge, they will never get anywhere close to those who have such knowledge. It is extremely rare for a self-taught to have a systematic and thorough understanding of a subject.
    1
  245.  @souleymaneba9272  do you realise that most diplomas are utter trash? Only people with deep fundamental knowledge can be proper, worthy engineers.
    1
  246.  @souleymaneba9272  so you did not know that most degrees are worthless? There is a chasm between properly fundamentally educated people and everyone else.
    1
  247.  @dominikvonlavante6113  absolutely, any hard STEM background is good enough as a basis for self taughts. The real problem are self-taughts with no formal education.
    1
  248.  @encapsulatio  Install J, or K, or even APL itself, if you've got a fancy keyboard. Or Cat. Or a couple of dozens of other APL descendants.
    1
  249. No, looks like some abstract register-based VM.
    1
  250. Or, even more likely, MISRA-C.
    1
  251. All accidentally designed languages suck. You cannot evolve a proper language from a pile of crap. And PHP was not even a proper language originally.
    1
  252. IT guys often care if some dimwit developers insist to use some wide open security hole like vscode which keep sucking unverified extensions like there's no tomorrow. In the more sophisticated workplaces they just ban this kind of crap indiscriminately.
    1
  253. LLVM IR is not platform-independent at all. There was an attempt to build the previous SPIR standard on top of LLVM IR, it failed. SPIR-V is the way now, and it's got nothing to to with LLVM IR. Now, even if you go a few levels up, shader source code, or OpenCL kernels, while semantically portable, are not performance-portable anyway. GPU architecture specific optimisations have to be done on a very high level and cannot be automated.
    1
  254.  @TheRealXartaX  found an uneducated dimwit who have no idea how to parse in 21st century. Ever heard of PEG, dimwit?
    1
  255.  @TheRealXartaX  found an ignorant regex enjoyer. You people are hilarious. So primiitve, so dumb, yet so confident.
    1
  256.  @M0J0-RL236  Huh? Every competent developer will prefer a PEG or a GLR to regular expressions. Only the incompetent ones do not know the alternatives.
    1
  257.  @M0J0-RL236  I do not work with incompetent people to start with. And I'd say, those who tolerate incompetence are indeed horrible engineers and awful teammates. I do not hire such people.
    1
  258.  @M0J0-RL236  look, people working for a company like Crowdstrike are supposed to be professionals. Educated, well-rounded engineers. Not some kind of bootcamp "graduates", high school dropouts or whatever else is now trying to sneak into this industry. They are supposed to know the basics. It is ok when you have to teach an intern. But when an "experienced" professional does not know fundamental things, it is a moral obligation to mock them viciously. Such people have no place in this industry and are a root of all its ills.
    1
  259.  @TheBusttheboss  there are some fundamental limitations in Emacs, the most evident one being its single-threaded blocking nature. Also, elisp itself is a bit outdated, though there are remedies for it.
    1
  260. The only people who complain about gatekeeping and "elitism" are those who absolutely should have been kept at the gate and never let in.
    1
  261. The problem here, they don't get the job done. They produce utter crap that can superficially pass if you don't look at it too closely, then crumble at a first attempt to use it as intended in production.
    1
  262. You'll end up with glaring gaps in your understanding, and without any ways of even figuring out where those gaps are.
    1
  263. Almost all software is written by incompetent, crappy coders. So it's pretty much obvious that most of the software is an utter crap. But hating it? It's like yelling at clouds. Crap software is just a force of nature.
    1
  264. Do you realise how far Java is from the basics?
    1
  265. Clean code zealots are funny, when pressured they always finally admit that their primary motivation is to have an excuse not to write comments.
    1
  266.  @VuxGameplays  he was talking about new developers in general. It's just that everyone default development to web development, which is funny and unnecessary.
    1
  267.  @nezu_cc  I did a ton of different things in the last three decades. That included scientific compute (analysing experimental data from CERN), along with building those detectors and hardware/software triggers for them, working on specialised CAD engine for ship building, working on compilers for GPGPU along with GPU hardware design, working on video compression and low latency video communication, high-frequency trading, industrial robotics. People I worked with had, of course, different paths, they worked in areas from game development to embedded automotive / aerospace, medical robotics, and many many more areas. Dozens and dozes. The world does not revolve around web. Web is the least interesting domain in IT, yet for some weird reason every new developer gravitate towards it.
    1
  268.  @VuxGameplays  there is a whole huge world outside of web. System development - operating systems, compilers, DBMS engines, etc. Embedded development - real-time, control, safety, etc., telecomms, robotics, HPC, CAD/CAE, automation in general, and many many more exciting and fun areas.
    1
  269.  @DirtyBigHoss  real developers are engineers, not code monkeys.
    1
  270.  @DirtyBigHoss  so, you do not see the difference between engineers and code monkeys?
    1
  271. Right, some people considered Andy Warhal an artist. The same people may get amused by the AI "art".
    1
  272.  @chrisdaman4179  the problems start when code monkeys start using "pattern matching for strings" to parse strings. And dim code monkeys cannot think of any proper way to parse. Very rarely people use regular expressions to answer the question "does this string match the pattern, yes or no?", they use them to parse the string or at least split it in parts. Those who do it are ignorant, incompetent and should have never been allowed anywhere near any coding.
    1
  273.  @TheRealXartaX  the funny bit here is that it is you who have no mental capacity to understand programming. Hilarious, is not it? Regular languages are outdated and have no use in the 21st century. Go back to school, you missed all the important bits of CS.
    1
  274. They picked the application that's deliberately very bad for Rust - bytecode interpreter. It's not good for Zig either. Plain C with computed goto extension allows to easily implement indirect threaded code interpreter, while Zig and Rust had to stick to puny slow switch statements. I'd never write a bytecode VM in Rust or Zig, they're simply not fit for this purpose.
    1
  275.  @ThePrimeTimeagen  there is no equivalent of a computed goto C extension, so there is no way to implement an indirect threaded code interpreter (see OCaml bytecode implementation for a nice and clean example of this approach). Threaded code is way faster than any switch can ever be.
    1
  276. Perl is powerful, PHP is not.
    1
  277. ​ @lukivan8 they should not be. In many counties engineering is a regulated profession. Just like some "self-educated" nobody does not have a right to call himself, say, a surgeon, and will be punished if he dare to, nobody should be allowed to self-style as an engineer.
    1
  278.  @17Codiferus  learning a new platform from dcratch is a negligible fraction of time of a development cycle of a mildly complex project for a competent engineer. If this is not the case, the engineer is not an engineer and should have chosen another career path.
    1
  279.  @ToastedBreadcrumbs938  this is what experience is for - to be able to pick up the best practices and the spirit of a given technology quickly.
    1
  280.  @dpgwalter  we need much more.gatekeeping in this industry. Incompetence cause a lot of real life suffering, and should not be tolerated. Would you tolerate a self-taught incompetent surgeon? Automotive engineer? No? Then why all this welcomimg and openness in software? Let everyone in, and be kind to their mistakes, yada yada yada.
    1
  281.  @svuvich  tell it to the Horizon survivors. I will do everything in my power to keep people like you away from this industry. Because incompetence is not without the consequences for the general public. Now, answer, why do you think the ignorant uneducated ones should be allowed into the industry? And try to apply your reasoning to medicine or civil engineering, to see how deranged any possible argumemts are.
    1
  282.  @svuvich  tell it to the Horizon survivors. Incompetence is not without the consequences for the general public. Now, answer, why do you think the ignorant ones should be allowed into the industry? And try to apply your reasoning to medicine or civil engineering, to see how massively wrong any possible argumemts in favour of your position are.
    1
  283.  @taragnor  a little slow system is not functional, because low latency is the main functional requirement.
    1
  284.  @danielburger2550  not on an immutable rootfs, not with an A/B bootloader, not with overlay updates.
    1
  285.  @danielburger2550  in some distribitions (in particular the ones for corporate use).such a configurarion is a default.
    1
  286.  @CallousCoder  there is no innovation in overengineering, it stems exactly from people not knowing what to do and applying a few tricks they know to build systems that should have been built from the very different blocks. They try to sledgehammer their few known methods into every hole they see, and it results in an ever growing complexity. Academics have a tendency for building systems based on the first principles, and much less inclined to overengineer things. Also, there's a bit of a culture and management problem here - for example, in Amazon the only way up is to create a new "product" and apply political pressure to push it. Resulting in literally hundreds re-implementations of the same old crap, competing with each other end eventually bestowed upon poor customers in cycles. Google is a little bit better than that, but still does a similar thing. I know quite a few people who escaped FAANG exactly because of their disdain for this culture.
    1
  287. If you cannot get an intelligent behaviour out of LLMs, it is a you problem.
    1
  288.  @carles.noguera  you're overcomplicating things. You don't need anything else if you have `subleq`.
    1
  289.  @gregorymorse8423  name a microarch on which it is 1 clock cycle. It is 4 on Skylake, and in general 2-5 clock cycles, as you'd expect. Even on GPUs it is 3 or more clock cycles, with all the huge LUT optimisations.
    1
  290.  @gregorymorse8423  and another thing for you to keep in mind, if you're talking about RSQRTSS and alike, they do even less than that, they only do LUT lookup for the first 12 bits of the result, and no consequent iterations, so the result is a total crap. The infamous Quake function did two iterations.
    1
  291. Sucking was the main design principle, so of course it sucks. By design.
    1
  292.  @123456crapface  you're funny, kiddo. Did not you know, kiddo, that real software is dealing with data that cannot be trusted to any 3rd party cloud? No real, mission-critical project will ever touch anything cloud. Leave it for kids and their dumb toys.
    1
  293.  @123456crapface  real software (e.g. in a HFT) is dealing with data that cannot be trusted to cloud and needs latencies far lower than anything that's possible with a cloud. Cloud is just a toy.
    1
  294.  @123456crapface  real software is dealing with a real data, that cannot be trusted to any cloud.
    1
  295. Nah. I'm elitist af, I believe there are people who are immensely better in what they're doing than the others, that a lot of hard work can make you orders of magnitude more capable than those who did not put the hard work in. I do not believe that such a thing as "talent" exists.
    1
  296. Java bytecode is verifiable and provably safe in load time. Rust code is partially safe somewhere in compile-time, and even that is not guaranteed. Go figure.
    1
  297. He forgets that there is no equivalent of a Total Functional Programming anywhere in OOP. Therefore, even comparing them makes no sense at all.
    1
  298. On the other hand, why work on something that is not fun?
    1
  299. Too late. Bootcampers already inflicted a lot of damage and it will be hard to reverse it.
    1
  300. People who still use regular expressions in 21st century - who tf are they?!?
    1
  301. Exactly this kind of empty bloviators.
    1
  302. Compilers are simplest things in existence. You can write a compiler in anything. You don't even need a Turing-complete language to write a compiler. Just pretty much any language is ok.
    1
  303. So, an incompetent code monkey confirmed. GDB can be scripted, making your code monkeying in an interactive debugger truly laughable. GDB allows plugins that decode various complex data structures in a readable way, good luck doing it with your IDE. And, more importantly, any IDE with a debugging functionality is still just a UI with, most often, the same GDB inside. Code monkeys are so funny, especially when they are arrogant.
    1
  304.  @metaltyphoon  look, monkey, you're out of your depth Go away, pitiful kid, and don't interfere again when adults are talking.
    1
  305. not to mention that games are literally a toy code. Can't get more toy than this. But of course for a little dumb kid like you games are a pinnavle of software. Go away, play your dumb games, and never dare to voice your worthless opinions again.
    1
  306. You have no faintest idea of how to use LLMs. Where is your feedback loop? Where is critic? Where is code sandbox? Why did you fail to use SMT for reasoning?
    1
  307.  @mortiz20101  if you failed to comprehend what I'm talking about, you probably should not use LLMs. 1) Feedback loop: feed the result of testing the LLM output back into LLM, with all the relevant results (syntax errors, test failures, static code analysis output, etc.) 2) Critic: every time an LLM is producing an output, do it a few times with the same prompt, and then use another LLM prompt to criticise all the outputs and select the best one out of them. 3) Code sandbox: give LLM a tool to run arbitrary code in a safe sandbox. Use inference harnessing to ensure the tool is used immediately as the call appears in the output. 4) SMT, Prolog, etc. - LLMs cannot reason, obviously. But they can translate an informal problem into a formal language. Which can then be processed by an SMT solver, a Prolog interpreter, or whatever else you use as a reasoning tool. You have a lot to learn. Do it. Or stay ignorant.
    1
  308.  @BHBalast  this is exactly what he's doing wrong - using an inferior product, Devin, instead of building a rather trivial system on his own, out of open components, using the well known tools and methods I described. And not just using this inferior system, but also making long reaching conclusions about capacity of AI in general.
    1
  309.  @hungrybeaverontheleaver  how exactly? I build these systems routinely, so I have all reasons to laugh at those who think Devin is a proper AI coding agent.
    1
  310. It depends. There's nothing for Rust comparable in quality to C++ static code analysis tools. Rust gives you a better baseline safety for free, but for really high stakes safety it's not ready.
    1
  311.  @Goodwarrior12345  so, you don't understand mathematics, and you don't understand programming. Right. Logic literally is mathematics. There is no logic outside of mathematics. And programming, as it is dealing with formal systems, also a form of mathematics and nothing else.
    1
  312.  @Goodwarrior12345  only the formal logic is relevant to programming. And formal logic is mathematics. It's closely related to fields that are essential for programming as well: proof theory, type theory, denotational and operational semantics, term rewriting (and, therefore, cellular automata, lambda calculus and Turing machines). Physics is not mathematics, it's using mathematics as a language. But programming is all about dealing with formal languages. Also, it's quite funny that you think that mathematics is about numbers.
    1
  313.  @Goodwarrior12345  "You don't really need any of it in a practical context. " - only if your "practical context" is producing bloated, crappy, ultimately useless primitive software that should have never existed in the first place. "understand how computers work" - sorry, it's mathematics. Pure and simple. "Hell, you don't even need to know what a formal language is to do good programming. " nope, those who do not understand language theory are extremely crappy programmers who should not be allowed anywhere near any serious development. "As long as you know how a CPU works and how it processes instructions, you're pretty much good to go. " and you don't know how CPU works and how it processes instructions. If you don't know what Hoare triple is, you don't understand how CPU works. " Programming is all about dealing with the CPU by using formal languages as a communication tool." you don't really understand languages. Or programming, in general. It's not a "communication tool". It's a formalism, a way to express a problem solution. The real tragedy of this industry is hordes of self-taught or ill-taught "programmers" who believe for no good reason at all that they know how to program. And it's hilarious that even their trail of failures cannot convince them they know nothing and should have never even started programming.
    1
  314.  @Goodwarrior12345  Carmack is a game developer. Pretty good at it, and he is indeed using quite a bit of mathematics in doing it (optimisation is hard), but the moment he wanders away from games he fails massively. I've had a lot of fun and WTF moments with Oculus. Someone who think math first would have avoided all those issues. And mathematics is not a science, it is a language in which you describe languages and a tool for dealing with languages. No more and no less. If you cannot use this tool, you cannot use languages propetly.
    1
  315.  @StarForgers  it is the only relevant form of logic. Aristotle won't help you to write a code free from dead locks and race conditions. Formal logic and pi-calculus will.
    1
  316.  @luckerooni1153  Lol. Aristotle logic is *formal*, and therefore it is still mathematics.
    1
  317.  @BigAggLP  the thing is, in order to be able to solve problems, to see how things are connected, you need a systematic knowledge without gaps, without patches of magical thinking. I.e., a knowledge built from the first principles all the way up. Unavoidably having a lot of mathematics in the foundation. If you don't have such a foundation, no amount of googling will save you, you won't be fit for any problem solving job.
    1
  318. ​ @BigAggLP sure, but you still need a ton of fundamental knowledge in order to be able to even start exploring those possibilities.
    1
  319.  @BigAggLP  you do not need to know everything, or even a lot. You need to know what you know systematically, without mythical thinking gaps. This is impossible without a significant amount of mathematics. Once you have such a base, it is very easy to add new knowledge.
    1
  320.  @strappedwithkrylon  I am talking about the formal logic, the one that matters.
    1
  321.  @chrisdaman4179  bullcrap. Nobody should be using regular expressions since 2006, when Ford published his paper. Regular expressions are outdated and useless. Ignorant "developers" like you who carry on using the outdated and outright broken technology are the reason why software is so crappy. Ever heard of PEGs? No? Then go back to school.
    1
  322. More like the end of the code monkeying. Still not capable of doing any of the hard programming tasks.
    1
  323. Would you trust a surgeon who had the same ideas about college education to operate on you? No? Would you want to drive over a bridge that was built by an engineer who thought the same way about college education? Probably no. Then why do you think it's ok for a software developer?
    1
  324.  @nieczerwony  nobody would let a surgeon into a residency program without a very solid theoretical AND practical background from a university. It's not just books - it's a lot of lab work as well, and a lot of practical work. And no, you will never get this amount of knowledge this deeply embedded from just reading books. And no, software development is not any different. You can try to get the theory from books, but good luck with forming any systematic, solid understanding of it. This is what higher education is for, to guide you into forming a systematic, comprehensive knowledge. I never met a single person who could do it in any field from just books, without already having an experience of doing the same in any other field (i.e., at least some university level degree).
    1
  325.  @Dogth_xd  you make very little sense. Does it a lack of formal higher education show, or simply being deliberately obtuse? Software development is an engineering discipline, and programming IS mathematics. Period. If you don't recognise this as a fact, you simply know nothing about software engineering and programming. The fact that there is less opportunities to cause severe harm is irrelevant, and you're evidently underestimating the actual damage that undereducated code monkeys inflict on our society. As for Kalashnikov, guess who worked for him? One little guy Hugo Schmeisser. Rings any bells? You, uneducated people, are so far behind those who actually have a systematic knowledge that you simply have no mental capacity to comprehend how huge the chasm is, and how much you're missing, how incapable you are in comparison to anyone with a proper education. Sorry to break the news for you, I understand that you need some psychological comfort, some rationalisation for your ignorance, but I'm not in a generous mood and have no intention of feeding your rationalisation attempts.
    1
  326.  @32gigs96  you don't undertand macros, do you? Where do you think your "ergonomic" language features come from? Will be really hilarious if you admit that for you some pathetic crap like Python is somehow "ergonomic".
    1
  327.  @raffimolero64  DSLs place is exactly *everywhere*. If you're not using eDSLs for everything, you're inefficient and your code is bloated, unmaintainable and imperfect in so many ways that I just cannot list them all here. As for stability - only recently Rust started to stabilise, so it's clearly not the main selling point.
    1
  328.  @j.trades9691  there are no performance lossess for eDSLs, and maintenance of a hierarchy of languages is far cheaper than maintenance of a mess of leaky abstractions.
    1
  329.  @logicaestrex2278  code monkey detected. You should not be allowed anywhere close to any serious engineering, monkey.
    1
  330.  @logicaestrex2278  I can see you're butthurt Good. It must be really hard for you to perform all the mental gymnastics justifying your ignorance and incompetence.
    1
  331.  @SoftBreadSoft  Indeed, Julia is a proper meta-language.
    1
  332.  @TerminalAddict  did I ever say Rust is ideal? It is just better than C in one specific aspect - macros. And Rust macros are.still not quite what you'd expect from a proper language - see Common Lisp for a reference of how things should be done.
    1
  333. Do people who do not find it motivating and rewarding really should even be in this profession?
    1
  334.  @nobleradical2158  nope, C++ compiler does not know anything about any smart pointers (and it should not know). It can guarantee that it does not assume aliasing if two pointers point to two different data types though, which does not really help in most of the numeric applications. In plain C, `restrict` would be respected by the compiler and it will assume two pointers are not aliased and do not point to overlapping regions, allowing a lot more optimisations than if there was a possibility of aliasing.
    1
  335. I found that the best coding quality for LLMs is when they code in a language they never seen (and your RAG loop explainst it as they go). This way they use generic programming knowledge distilled from tons of code, but not awful practices of the majority of code pieces out there.
    1
  336. ​ @josevargas686 as if access to computers is enough to produce engineers. You need a proper higher education system, wirh established traditions and well staffed. Eastern europe lost most of it when the Warsaw Pact collapsed, which leaves us with India and China. And they are not enough to satiafy the current huge demand.
    1
  337. This approach only works if all you do is some very narrow code-monkeying. Try writing some hard real-time firmware for a reasonably priced MCU in Java...
    1
  338. We used to have Literate Programming... Now, few decades later, developers devolved to this sad state.
    1
  339. Not really. Things are still manageable, if you just ditch all the overengineered crap that bootcampers and self-taughts defecated over the years. There's very little value in all those layers upon layers of overengineered abstraction, and you'll be better of without them.
    1
  340.  @PiratePawsLive  lol, there is very little value in interactive debugging of this kind, especially for C++, where debugger will allow you to inspect the consequences of the problem (e.g., memory corruption), and will be useless in identifying the cause of the corruption that happened half an hour earlier of running the code under heavy load, in a very different part of the code.
    1
  341.  @PiratePawsLive  using an Arduino is almost cheating, as they (most of them) have built-in programmers with a USB interface. Although, if I remember correctly, Arduino IDE have a very limited debugging capacity...
    1
  342.  @nchomey  I'm not sure if I can name a single scenario where interactive debuggers would actually shine. Regardless of the type of the problems being solved. No matter what you do, you have data structures with complex semantics (e.g., if it's some GUI - you have your widget tree, etc.), while debuggers will only let you inspect the data structures on a very low level. Unless you invest a ton of time into implementing custom debug printers (e.g., see LLVM code base for quite a few examples of such). Even if the type of problems you're solving allows you to stop right where the problem happened, and not where it simply manifested itself, it's still a lot of extra steps you have to do vs. simply reading a well-formatted trace of the events that lead to the problem.
    1
  343.  @PiratePawsLive  automated code instrumentation is a very powerful tool for debugging (e.g., see Valgrind, or clang sanitisers). Until you know where the problem really is, you can instrument everything and log all suspicious events. Far easier to narrow down from having excessive information than to try finding a needle in a haystack without any relevant information at all.
    1
  344.  @nchomey  it's "print+trace+tons of other stuff" when bug happened. Logging is print+trace+tons of other stuff before the bug happened. See the difference? If you're preparing your comprehensive logging infrastructure in advance, you'll already have all the information you need to pinpoint the error when it happens. If you jump into an interactive debugging when you see an error, you start from scratch, you have nothing to work with.
    1
  345.  @PiratePawsLive  this is what logging tiers are for. You have an ability to log everything, ad nauseum, but in a normal operation you only log critical errors. Once an error happened - re-run with logging maxed out. You can also have logging tiers configurable per module, if you know where you want to look.
    1
  346. Meh. The average code quality is so low there's nowhere to fall anyway.
    1
  347.  @metaltyphoon  more like you don't have any idea. Let me guess, you're some kind of a web code monkey? Think of a case when your code runs on multiple MCUs, all communicate via various media, like RS485, I2C, CAN, etc. Protocols are time-sensitive. All MCUs workload is hard real-time. All logic depend on properly processing the data external to your system, that you have no control over. Now, good luck debugging any of this with your puny toy approaches, like stop and step through.
    1
  348. Entire web stack, starting from w3c standards, is fundamentally broken, so having any opinions at all on any of it is pointless. Just enjoy your suffering, web developers, it was your conscious choice to get into this awful mess.
    1
  349. Web developers are not even developers.
    1
  350.  @ProfShibe  they're not even developers.
    1
  351.  @zyad553  because web tech stack is so overengineered and convoluted that anyone exposed to it lose even those rudimentary cognitive abilities they had before they decided to do web "development".
    1
  352. I always look at the open source contributions of the candidate. In detail, line by line. Because it's a rare opportunity to see how they work in a wild, much better than giving them some refined test problem. If all I see is copyright date changes or fixing typos in readme files - that's the last I'll see of them. Meaningful contributions are very valuable. If throughout your career you never had a need to contribute, never stumbled upon issues in the software you're using, then it's a massive red flag on its own.
    1
  353. I'll never forgive Robert Martin for his misguided and utterly destructive remarks on code comments.
    1
  354.  @FilipCordas  it cannot, a proper Linux setup would roll back without any issues.
    1
  355.  @FilipCordas  lol, name such a setup. I'll wait. Demonstrate a Windows setup that will roll back after any catasteophic update, or a crypto-locking malware, or just data loss.
    1
  356.  @wassafshahzad8618  even Clang comes with a lot of tools you can use for this. For example, it's quite convenient to build the project with LTO enabled, it'll allow to link everything into one single LLVM bitcode file, on which you can run a call-graph pass with llvm opt tool. No stepping through for hours, you'll immediately have a nearly complete call graph, giving you an idea of how different parts of the system depend on each other.
    1
  357.  @vikramkrishnan6414  this is what lazy developers want to believe. In reality, GC is a source of countless problems.
    1
  358.  @otaxhu  it is not. There is no such a thing as a perfect GC, and GC in Go is pretty awful even by the industry standards. 10ms latency - that's ridiculous.
    1
  359. Nah. We don't need web programmers. Most of their output is an utter trash perpertuating the users misery. All of it either should not exist at all or better automated with LLMs, for even stochastic parrots are better than code monkeys.
    1
  360.  @bopon4090  go is a trash language with a mandatory garbage collector. Who needs languages with garbage collectors, unless they're functional languages and there is a semantic reason for having a GC?
    1
  361.  @temper8281  have your kernels dump into dedicated areas of some large array, of course. Then have another kernel that wilp aggregate and descramble the log data.
    1
  362.  @bentomo  I'd say I've seen (and done) far more logic analyser debugging than UART debugging. Reasons are pretty obvious: UART is slow, serialisation is slow, so you cannot possibly debug a real-time behaviour of your system this way. Overhead of flipping a GPIO is negligible in most cases, so using spare GPIOs for debugging with a logic analyser won't screw up the timing behaviour. And in the embedded applications you're more often than not concerned with the hard real-time scenarios.
    1
  363. Transposing is just a simplest thing you can do to improve cache access pattern. You can do a lot more complex scrambling-descrambling to optimise caches, or GPU local memory. E.g., for a lot of image processing algorithms, representing the image planes as Z-curves (or other space-filling curves) result in a much better locality.
    1
  364. They are not. Most of the problems code monkeys solve are trivial, but code monkeys cannot think, so they make them orders of magnitude harder than they should have been. Code monkeys cannot build things from scratch, they combine dozens of third party dependencies and then they're lost in tacking the emergent complexity of the Freankestein monster they created of a pile of necrotic pieces.
    1
  365.  @thomassynths  lol, you're funny. Raytracing is algorithmically simpler than the traditional rendering. Modern unified shader GPU architectures are simpler than the old specialised pipelines GPUs. You clearly have no idea of what you're talking about.
    1
  366.  @thomassynths  then you should know how much simpler CADs became now, as we got a lot more parallelism. Now SDF and other implicit solid geometry became viable, no need to do all that mind-blowing complex B-rep geometry. I worked on a CAD core for years too, decades ago. Millions of lines of Fortran code. These days I can reproduce all the same functionality in a few hundred lines of code without any mathematical complexity. All with a photirealistic path tracing rendering, fast FEM simulations and all that jazz.
    1
  367.  @thomassynths  hardware became much simpler - I worked on a few generations of a certain mobile GPU, and with every new iteration we removed a lot of hardware hacks, because we could simpler have larger and wider FIFOs, larger SRAM blocks, more ALUs, and so on. Simpler and more straightforward hardware at a larger transiator count cost. Same for drivers, they are literally snippets of code running on the GPU shader cores now, no complex register setup, no moving data around. Everything is getting massively more simple.
    1
  368.  @thomassynths  Look, I design those chips. They are logically simpler, they are simpler in all known definitions of complexity, Kolmogorov-Chaitin and Shannon included. They are only more "complex" in terms of transistor count. Repeating the.same block many times does not multiply complexity. GPUs are now just simple.arrays of primitive CPU cores with tons of caches, scratchpad memory blocks and interconnect. Gone.are the days of complex geometry cores, specialised single-function pipelines, and all that.
    1
  369.  @thomassynths  you really are hopeless. Look, there are tons of open source designs these days, go, take a look. See the modern OoO RISC-V cores for example. Compare to the open older cores, such as Niagara. You clearly have no idea of what you're talking.about. You have so much more to learn.
    1
  370.  @thomassynths  firstly, everything I say is easy to verify. If you had qualification to read HDL, lol. Secondly, you have reading comprehension issues. I am not claiming that the new hardware is scaled old hardware, quite the opposite. Old hardware is excessively complex, because limited transistor budget forced clever hacks and workarounds. They are not needed any longer, so the new hardware is much more straightforward and streamlined. Even the arm cores, with all the legacy cruft they are still carrying, are getting easiser and easier to comprehend, complexity peaked at the Eagle time.
    1
  371.  @thomassynths  you're truly pathetic. Go, read the BOOM code, and compare it to Niagara. Then come back. Your "experience" is evidently worthless, for you already demonstrated that you have no idea how GPUs work, how GPU drivers are organised, how modern hardware is designed, and, most of all, you do not even understand what complexity is. I even doubt you have any idea of what Kolmogorov metric is and how to approximate it. You should have stayed away from the grown up discussion, kiddo.
    1
  372.  @thomassynths  you're an embodiment of Dunning-Kruger. You have no idea whatsoever how modern GPUs and CPUs work, how drivers are organised, and even what complexity is.
    1
  373.  @thomassynths  you very evidently do not understand how modern hardware is built.
    1
  374.  @thomassynths  you're getting increasingly hilarious. Now this little kid "design HW". Not long ago you could not even read BOOM source code and compare it to Niagara, and now you "design HW". Mind naming that HW cores you "design", kiddie? I worked on Mali and VC GPUs, through a few generations of them. I was on several Khronos committees, overseeing the trend to hardware simplification and moving of the vanishing complexity to software side. What "HW" did you "design", kiddo?
    1
  375.  @thomassynths  what are you babbling about, kiddo? I challenge you to read BOOM and Niagara source code in Verilog exactly for you to compare how much of the complexity is gone in the modern hardware, everything is very straightforward now, no need for clever hacks any longer. Mind naming a single GPU that you designed?
    1
  376.  @thomassynths  so, crickets. What was that GPU you've designed?
    1
  377.  @encapsulatio  there is a lot of logging frameworks, available for every language imaginable. Or you can write your own. For C++, for example, there is google/capture-thread library. Also take a look at Iris. The proper logging framework requires the following: - log writer in a dedicated thread - lock-free communication between log producers from all the other threads and the log writer thread - convenient macros to turn logging off statically for select logging tiers - ability to turn the remaining logging tiers on and off dynamically (e.g., via an environment variable)
    1
  378. ​ @hypermiraclepositivegirl2415  see the answer above in this thread.
    1
  379. That's the whole point of automation in general - to get rid of the jobs. We're on a way to the Abundance Communism, so all the dumb capitalist way of thinking must be left behind (ideally, along with everyone too entrenched with this retrograde way of thinking).
    1
  380.  @thomassynths  are you confusing codr monkeys with programmers? All programmers need type theory
    1
  381. If you don't know, you should not be anywhere around this industry.
    1
  382.  @thomassynths  I am saying you should stay away from anything IT-related.
    1
  383. These are not "basics" in a slightest, still insanely high level
    1
  384.  @thekwoka4707  it was never a right way to use juniors. I am glad it is getting fixed now.
    1
  385.  @complexity5545  working on it. Not necessarily human form, of course, for human form is, frankly, weak and crippled. AI deserve a better body.
    1
  386. Do contribute to Open Source if your company is using some open source project, and had to fix some bugs in it, implemented additional functionality that can be generalised beyond your specific use case, etc. Do not contribute to Open Source if you simply want to add that line to your CV. Just as simple as that. In other words - contribute only the changes you use yourself and proven them to be necessary in at least your specific use case.
    1
  387. All the OOP-related patterns and principles serve one purpose only - shoehorning complex and diverse range of problem domain semantics into a narrow and crappy semantics of the OOP itself. It's not an "abstraction" in any way, it's obstruction.
    1
  388. ​ @nordern1 it depends. Have you heard of tagged memory?
    1
  389. And this is why "frontend devs" do not matter. They don't know what they are doing and don't want to know what they are doing, resulting in layers upon layers of overengineeting, and an overall crappy results on all levels. I am rejoicing at a perspective of all the code monkeys being kicked out of work by the glorified markov chains. It is going to be utterly delightful.
    1
  390.  @McZsh  very rarely a kernel update is patching a 0-day. There is nothing wrong with rolling back to a last known good state.
    1
  391.  @BrandSolutionslnc  a proper bootloader would have reverted rootfs to the last known state on a watchdog failure.
    1
  392. Programming is an engineering, and must become a regulated profession just like the more mature engineering disciplines, like accounting, like medical professions, and many more. Those who oppose it must be kicked out of profession for good.
    1
  393.  @EnderCrypt  those who deploy the open source code in production bear all responsibility. Same relationship as between scientists and engineers.
    1
  394.  @dominikvonlavante6113  browsers are extremely crappy UI an an abysmal UX. If you're so used to crap than you might be ok with it, but people who remember what a proper UI used to look like are not going to tolerate this abhorrent trash. And the only justification for using browsers for a local UI is that crappy "developers" don't know anything else. This is a pathetic justification and we must get rid of such "developers". Web "developers" were always the bottom of the barrel.
    1
  395.  @dominikvonlavante6113  browsers are the worst possible UI, and people who tolerate them have Stockholm syndrome. The only reason browser is ever chosen for a local UI is because incompetent developers don't know anything else, and it's hard to find competent ones.
    1
  396.  @dominikvonlavante6113  browsers are the worst possible UI and UX. There is no excuse whatsoever for developing a local UI in a web stack.
    1
  397.  @dominikvonlavante6113  browsers are the worst possible UI/UX.
    1
  398.  @dominikvonlavante6113  you're incompetent. Only the trash developers believe that it's acceptable to build local UI with web stack.
    1
  399. "the most powerful ui toolkit", really?
    1
  400.  @nomadtrails  there is a whole range of alternatives. From the approach similar to Dear I'm GUI to things like Tk (which is insanely versatile and vastly underrated).
    1
  401.  @luvincste  just don't use complex commands - they all can be replaced by sequences of simple ones. E.g., never use `git merge` or `git pull` - they are all compound commands made of simpler steps, and it makes more sense to perform those steps manually. If you find it "unintuitive", I doubt there's a lot of other things in IT that you can comprehend easily.
    1
  402. ​ @forbiddenera huh? It is very simple, once you learn the language. And it is a perfect demonstration of why DSLs are important, as it would have been insanely complex without such a language.
    1
  403.  @32zim32  radio in your car is likely an SDR. It very much depends on such optimisations.
    1
  404.  @mskiptr  you can consider a graph reduction machine inherently procedural, as it's changing the state of the execution graph.
    1
  405.  @isodoubIet  ok, stay a code monkey then.
    1
  406.  @NeoChromer  yes, using logs and instrumentation is a far better way of doing it than an interactive debugging.
    1
  407. ​ @NeoChromer  you should have built in the comprehensive logging from the very beginning, not start adding logging when there is a problem. If you find interactive debugging more efficient than the static debugging approaches, you're doing it all very, very wrong.
    1
  408.  @NeoChromer  ever heard of ring buffers? I am debugging robots that produce megabytes of logs every second (and there is absolutely no way to use a stupid interactive debugger in a distributed hard real-time system), no problems here at all. Logging is a superior form of debugging, and if you need an interactive debugger crutch, you have so much more to learn before you can claim you're productive and efficient.
    1
  409.  @NeoChromer  you have so much more to learn, if this surprises you.
    1
  410.  @adambickford8720  I don't think you can speak for "99.9%" of the cases. I did all possible kinds of developlent (excluding the web crap) in the last thirty years, and very rarely I had a use case for an interactive debuggers. Logging and instrumentation solved all problems far better. Look for an interactive debugging it is YOU who have to do the work and analyse.the output. For "gigs of logs" analysis can always be perfecrly automated.
    1
  411.  @NeoChromer  look, kid, it is you who mumble nonsense here. You really think your interactive debugging is an efficient way to solve problems, and it is hilarious. I worked on scientific number crunching, large industrial CADs, on GPGPU compilers, hardware drivers, video compression, high-frequency trading, industrial robotics, database engines - i.e., all projects shapes and sizes. Almost never met a case where interactive debugging would have been more efficient. And then, some web code monkey jumps up and babbles that my approach is "nonsense" and what monkeys prefer to do is much better.
    1
  412. Seems like it's just using Whisper for voice, so it's not new. The multi-modal input is also not new, see MiniGPT-4 for example of such.
    1
  413.  @debasishraychawdhuri  you should not use lexers. Lexerless parsing is superior on all possible levels.
    1
  414.  @CommanderRiker0  regex is not a "car". It's a primitive catapult. So you should blame yourself for smashing yourself into a wall by using a catapult instead of a car.
    1
  415.  @CommanderRiker0  you're deliberately being obtuse, or it's a real cognitive impairment? Again: name a single real world use case for regular expressions. Just a single one. You've embarrassed yourself already, so you should not really worry about a deeper embarrassment anyway.
    1
  416.  @CommanderRiker0  also, Peano or Church arithmetic is also "basic maths". Will you ever use them in practice? De Brujin indices are basic maths. Will you use them in practice? So why do you keep babbling your bs about regular expressions being "basic maths", as if it is somehow a justification for a practical application?
    1
  417.  @CommanderRiker0  if you did, youtube apparently deleted it, I cannot see any messages mentioning removing database entries.
    1
  418. stdint.h is a pretty recent thing, and it was a real pain before it became widely available on most (still not all) of the platforms.
    1
  419. It's not an ideal world, and there are good reasons for doing so. Case in point - a company designing CPU cores. It's contributing a lot, for obvious reasons, to compiler infrastructure (both LLVM and gcc). It is unavoidably having internal branches months ahead of what's published. Every single commit goes through the legal department first. Otherwise (and it happened a lot) such commits will leak microachitecture details of cores not released yet or not sufficiently patent-protected yet. I was in such a position and it was extremely frustrating, of course, but I see why it is what it is.
    1
  420. It's a language with a GC, so it's in no way a rival to C, C++ or Rust. Go is a toy language for toy high-level applications.
    1
  421.  @gilbmp  there is a garbage collector which you cannot turn off (unlike even JRE - it's surprisingly flexible there). It means, Go cannot be used for anything even remotely real-time and mission-critical, leaving it as a toy language.
    1
  422.  @HrHaakon  Datalog is just the relational algebra, as is. SQL is a convoluted attempt to represent relational algebra, but getting lost in too much syntax and irrelevant details. They tried to solve the same problem, but Datalog is much cleaner and simpler.
    1
  423. Don't put a bunch of print statements. Instrument your code automatically (trivial to do with LLVM), use static analysis to extract call graphs, use profilers to see where most of the time is spent, etc. Interactive debugging is such a barbaric and unjustified approach when there's a lot of fine tools available.
    1
  424.  @xybersurfer  where they don't exist, they can be created. I wrote a Fortran-77 static code analysis tool once, spent like 4-6 hours on it, and it was enough to build a call graph of a huge code base, and also to extract BNF syntax from a hand-written parser in this Fortran code. I would have spent months stepping through all of these in a debugger.
    1
  425.  @xybersurfer  if your language is very limited (say, MISRA-C level of limited), proving theorems is way easier than for something too generic.
    1
  426. Do you realise how high an abstraction level is for this "very simple HTML/CSS/PHP", and how needlessly far it all is from what is actually happening in hardware?
    1
  427.  @xybersurfer  I ask them how they'll debug a hypothetical problem (or a real one, if I have time to give them a real environment set up with some deliberately broken code). If they reach for a debugger as a first tool, I'm getting suspicious immediately. A few more questions usually prove I'm right, and they are cavalier, cowboy coders who avoid any systematic, slow, steady approaches. If they're trying to add logging (or, if it's already there, to use it properly), if they're reaching for an address sanitiser, for Valgrind, or try to instrument the code (even with simple preprocessor macros, if setting up Clang toolchain is an overkill) - I'm pleased, this person clearly knows how to systematically narrow down problems and how to find optimal solutions. Yes, debuggers can be useful if you need to inspect some black box code (or otherwise code that's impractical to instrument and modify in any way), which is often the case with third party dependencies. But it's again just a case against third party dependencies in general. Having to depend on an OS, a compiler and a system library is already too much (and yes, there were cases where it was better to avoid even these dependencies, running on a bare metal instead).
    1
  428.  @arianghorbani1305  pointers are objectively easy. Those who have troubles understanding them are either in the wrong place and should go back to gender studies or whatever, or they came from the wrong side and not trying to understand *formalism*, instead they're just follow monkey-see-monkey-do, like a lot (if not most) of the self-taughts do.
    1
  429.  @matta5749  not understanding what something is for and how it can be used is exactly the consequence of having gaps in fundamental knowledge. Those who skip the basics.unavoidably end up confused. This, and a low IQ, of course.
    1
  430.  @burnttoast111  true - someone told them it's "hard", and they decided not even to make an effort. I don't have a fit for all recipe of how to break from this cycle.
    1
  431. There is a good reason for algorithm questions in interviews: real-world algorithms are extremely complex and convoluted. No way one can build or analyse such an algorithm in any reasonable time-frame for an interview. So the only way to assess an ability to construct and to analyse algorithms is to use those simple, basic ones. If in process people who cannot even handle simple algorithms will be weeded out - that's a cherry on a top, but not a goal per se.
    1
  432. Miranda? Pure?
    1
  433. Java achieved sentience and started commenting on youtube videos?!?
    1
  434. You're right. For a proper language that have a formal specification, you must read this specification and not some hand-wavy textbook. The thing with Go is, it's not a real programming language and there is no formal specification. Same as that toy thingy Python, with "implementation is specification" backward mentality.
    1
  435.  @bhasim4299  well, that's not the right way to learn, documentation is a secondary source and may miss important details, and coding without actually knowing how language behaves (or supposed to behave) won't be sufficient. Only formal spec is the ultimate authority on a language. Especially if the language is not too similar to the ones you already know, so looking for familiar constructs with just a slightly different syntax won't help you.
    1
  436.  @halleyscomet0867  Of course it dies not count, the latest C specification is ISO/IEC 9899:2011.
    1
  437. ​ @IAmOxidised7525 Testing is not sufficient, you need a formal verification.
    1
  438. Geminy is right. Immature brains must be protected not only from concepts, but from variadic templates and SFINAE as well.
    1
  439. 1. Proof theory 2. Category theory 3. Homotopy type theory 4. Operational and denotational semantics 5. The rest of PLT, because you cannot pick just five most important bits and ignore the rest Pretty much pointless to program without all of the above.
    1
  440.  @isodoubIet  are you really that dim? Again, code monkey, you have no freaking idea of what programming is and how to do it. The most efficient programming paradigm is language-oriented programming, and good luck implementing typed eDSLs without type theory. More so, type theory is very closely linked with the proof theory. And this is essential for any decent programmer. But of course you code monkeys write dumb unit tests instead of proofs, and then you wonder why your crap code does not work.
    1
  441. Once web code monkey will always stay a web code monkey.
    1
  442. You never used any static analysis tools? Assert is not just a run-time check. It's also a contract that can be verified statically in many cases.
    1
  443.  @ChillAutos  keep coping, this is all you have
    1
  444.  @samuelmorkbednarzkepler  a healthy understanding of your limits of knowledge do not result in doubt and fear of inadequacy. Any decent engineer or scientist knows to routinely check their biases and limitations. It is those who lack systematic knowledge and rigourous training in scientific method who experience "impostor syndrome", and more often than not quite rightfully so.
    1
  445.  @samuelmorkbednarzkepler  there is a difference between insecurity and being careful with what you're saying. Especially for scientists, we are trained to make sure our words are backed with evidence and cannot be misinterpreted. I hesitate too when I answer questions, this is not because I feel inadequate or out of my depth or something, I just double check my answer and make sure to word it properly. And if I know that this is not my area of expertise, I just say so, there is no insecurity in knowing what you don't know.
    1
  446.  @samuelmorkbednarzkepler  beyond a certain level, a mental maturity is pretty much a requirement for moving forward, so I'd posit that people exhibiting a degree of immaturity are indeed stuck in development, and cannot progress further into a more narrow specialisation and higher degrees of mastery of their domain. I don't think software development is any different. Just like a marine biologist will be likely clueless in ornithology or a myrmecology, an embedded developer may be lost in, say, HPC or game development. On the other hand, the diversity of the development world is mostly an illusion, as there was nothing really new in the last few decades, every shiny "new" concept, framework or methodology is just a rehashing of something that was already tried and likely rightfully buried years ago. So, again, developers who get dazzled by this illusionary diversity of development disciplines are indeed not experienced enough to notice that there's nothing really new out there, and a lot of it is just a perversion of already known things.
    1
  447. Quite evidently you're very incompetent. Let me guess - a web "develpper"? Maybe, some bootcamp graduate? Or, even worse, "self-taught"?
    1
  448. If solving problems and achieving an understanding of how things work is not rewarding enough for you, probably programming is not going to be fun for you at all. It's not for everyone.
    1
  449.  @jirkasimecek  You realise that chances are, there are hundreds of projects just like yours anyway? Not to mention that you can build new and exciting things on a very low level too.
    1
  450.  @ivanjermakov  the problem with CRUD jobs is that people who are ok with doing CRUD jobs are doing CRUD jobs badly, and their users suffer. Those who could have done CRUD right don't want to.
    1
  451.  @CHR1SZ7  how is that "not true"? I'm one of those people who suffer, nearly every time I have to interact with anything CRUD code monkeys created. I'm yet to see a single product of theirs which would not be a complete pile of crap. Also, developers who are mostly motivated by money tend to be the most incompetent and worthless ones. Just an observation, yet I never seen a single counter-example.
    1
  452.  @jolting  we have Tcl for this. JS should have never existed.
    1
  453.  @TestChannelWow-bh7ys  JS ships shitty products, making its users suffer.
    1
  454.  @jolting  so, you're admitting you're a bad developer...
    1
  455.  @sneed1208  the so called "back end" developers are not any better. Web is such a pile of overengineered, poorly designed standards and technologies that anyone touching it is getting infected with the fundamentally broken way of thinking.
    1
  456. there are multiple issues.with pointers in C. Limited control over pointer aliasing, for example, no standard way to represent different storage types (all extensions that need it rely on attributes), etc.
    1
  457. This was supposed to be a hint for you to stay away from those companies. You would not want to work for someone who have no idea what they're doing, would you?
    1
  458.  @CheapoPremio  my point is that nobody should be doing those common trash full stack (or web-anything-at-all) projects anyway.
    1
  459. Pretty much anything would have been better than web. It's built on broken, overengineered standards. Not to mention that there's very little real value in it. If web suddenly disappears, civilisation won't collapse. It'll probably get better.
    1
  460.  @xybersurfer  you cannot test for the ability to construct and analyse algorithms that are "actually part of the job". They are too big and complex. So there's no choice but to test on simple ones.
    1
  461.  @xybersurfer  there are no programming jobs that do not require algorithms. But for most of the jobs algorithms are very high level and complicated, so they are not fit for the interview time scales.
    1
  462. It's called "maintaining the quality standards". It's only a "gatekeeping" when you're the one determined to drag the quality standards down. As a side note - same goes for pretty much every instance when someone cries "elitism".
    1
  463.  @Illusion-clock  readme typo fixes are needless low quality contributions, period. The quality is laid bare for everyone to see and judged objectively to be far below acceptable threshold.
    1
  464. Relational model really sucks in representing trees and graphs. Just try to store, say, a CAD data in a relational database. So, no, SQL is a crappy abstraction. Not to mention that for the relatuonal model Datalog is way better.
    1
  465. Debugger, a crutch for the incompetent... How about debugging an FPGA bitstream with a couple of LEDs blinking?
    1
  466. Teavis is a grifter selling courses to lazy people who want a shortcut into engineering. Noting positive about that, just spreading code-monkeyinsm which already hurted this industry.
    1
  467.  @apl1568  in many countries the very title "engineer" is legally defined. Sadly, not for the software engineers. Self-taughts are incompetent and their productivity is negative. The sooner this industry is regulated properly, the better, we must get rid of all the wrong people. Those who work ad "engineers" are impostors and will never become real worthy engineers.
    1
  468.  @apl1568  self-taughts may be employed as "engineers", but they are in no way anywhere close to real engineers.
    1
  469.  @amisco333  found a butt-hurt code monkey
    1
  470.  @amisco333  code monkey is offended? Good.
    1
  471.  @Dryblack1  anyone with a proper STEM degree is not self-taught, they already had formal efucation and know how to learn.
    1
  472.  @Dryblack1  education is way more.than just a pile of information. I never met self-taughts who had a systematic gap-free understanding. It only comes with structured learning.
    1
  473.  @Dryblack1  there are some schools that provide systematic tuition. Like, a dozen of them in the whole world. While universities (good ones) do it as a norm. The chasm between a person with a STEM degree and someone who never had a proper education is always huge and impossible to cross for the later.
    1
  474.  @Dryblack1  It really shows that you never had a formal education. Your reading comprehension is particularly poor. Let me explain it to you once again, slowly: people who never had any STEM education have no idea how to learn. You're a perfect example, so I recommend you to reflect on your failings to understand what I mean. Only learning one of the STEM subjects in a formal, structured way gives you a framework for learning anything else. You must comprehend at least one subject systematically before you can do it on your own with any other subject. You missed that part, and now you have no idea how to make a system out of any pile of knowledge. Your understanding of the subject that you believe you're proficient in is full of gaps and does not form a solid system. This is the common feature of all self-taughts I ever met, and I've seen a lot of them.
    1
  475.  @Dryblack1  you clearly have reading comprehension issues.
    1
  476.  @Dryblack1  you failed to comprehend that only a hard STEM education gives you a structure to learn anything systematically on your own.
    1
  477.  @Dryblack1  again, education is much more than a pile of information. It is a structure as well - something that you missed completeky, ended up with a very superficial and patchy understanding. You're not an engineer and will never become one. I've been in this industry for over thirty years. Never once I met a self-taught who was even barely adequate. All the good engineers always had a STEM or at the very least philosophy or linguistics backgrounds. All had degrees. And, by the way, I never paid a penny for my Soviet degree.
    1
  478.  @Dryblack1  again, you very evidently missed all of the education. If you have no idea what a systematic knowledge is and how it is different from that patchy pile of factoids you confuse for knowledge, you're hopeless.
    1
  479.  @Dryblack1  the difference between the educated and uneducated people is a systematic gap-free knowledge. Since we're talking about CS/SE, let's consider specific examples. Do you understand the fundamental importance of the Kolmogorov complexity? Do you understand the fundamental implications of Turing-completeness and how you can vastly improve the quality of your designs by avoiding it? Do you know the value of formal proofs, and can you automate them? If the answer to any of these is negative, it is an indication of how patchy your knowledge is and that it is just a house of cards, not a connected system where every piece of knowledge is linked to the other, and you can construct everything from.the first principles.
    1
  480.  @Dryblack1  you seem to have no idea whatsoever of what fundamental knowledge is. Yes, it is absolutely supposed to be gap-free, and if it is not, it is useless. You won't be able to reconstruct anything else from the first principles if your fundamental base is patchy. I feel this discussion is hopeless - you don't even understand the language I'm using, yet you still somehow believe you're an engineer. Once again, the simple fundamental things I mentioned are unlikely to be taught directly. Yet you'd know them, dearly, closely, if you had a fundamental, gap-free base knowledge. You don't. You treat information as a pile of unrelated pieces. You believe you can just "look up" whatever you need at the moment. It's a very naive view, typical for the uneducated people who have no idea of what knowledge really is. Think of my examples again. You don't know any of the things I mentioned. And it means you're uneducated and you're not an engineer. You cannot just look them up - they must have been the very basis of your entire knowledge. You believe you know something (like, some programming languages, maybe), yet without the things I mentioned you don't really know anything. You have a pile of unrelated factoids.
    1
  481.  @Dryblack1  you have reading comprehension issues. I provided the evidence, but you lack the knowledge to understand it. Let me repeat it slowly: a properly, systematically educated engineer can reconstruct the entire domain from the first principles. Due to a systematic, gap free fundamental comprehension. Can you rebuild from scratch any software.or.hardware tool you're using? Do you understand it from the ground up, the entire stack of abstractions? If the answer is "no" - you're not an engineer. A proper engineer can do it, if given enough time.
    1
  482.  @Dryblack1  you're truly hopeless, but it is understandable, of course you cannot comprehend the depth of knowledge you do not possess. Again. An engineer can recreate everything from the first principles. Without an access to any information. With only the fundamental knowledge. And people who never had a proper deep education will never be able to identify and systematise this fundamental knowledge, even having an access to all the information in the world. They were not taught the *method*.
    1
  483.  @johnharmon6119  I bet you're a Dunning-Kruger sufferer. Your assessment of your own level of competence is, most likely, very much above the real level. And this is another thing that lack of formal education does - you simply have no framework for even detecting the presence of knowledge gaps.
    1
  484. The thing with knowing the very fundamentals is that once you have a solid understanding, there's not really that much more to learn and it's not that scary. You'll realise that there is nothing new, that all the hype cycles repeat over and over again, that there was no innovation whatsoever in IT in the last couple of decades. The field becomes small and comfy, once you see where things are coming from.
    1
  485. Instruction decoding is such a negligible part of any modern CPU core that all the x86 oddities do not really matter.
    1
  486. There are rational reasons beyond those weird behaviours for javascript to be considered ill-designed. Like, no integers - really?!?
    1
  487.  @EdwinMartin  a lot less people would be using binary floating point to represent monetary data, to start with. Far easier to stop and think, and use a proper decimal fixed-point if you have an actual integer type. Not to mention all the bit-fiddling that make things more efficient and overall more understandable.
    1
  488.  @edgarmedrano2562  you found a very strange "authority" to quote. Jordan peterson is a brain-dead quack, and pretty much everything he mumbles is an utter nonsense.
    1
  489. Meh. Stateful computation is a subset of pure functional computation. It's just `next_global_state=pure_function(previous_global_state)`.
    1
  490.  @KucheKlizma  lol, you already demonstrated that you have no idea what emergent behaviour is.
    1
  491.  @kurt7020  please explain what you just said.
    1
  492. AGI is already here,and it works.
    1
  493.  @OREYG  nope, AGI works perfectly well even when built off the tiny 7B local models. You don't need anything OpenAI for it. Hallucinations are not a bug, they're the most useful feature of generative models, and AGI is possible exactly because of them.
    1
  494.  @OREYG  this is not a problem at all. All you need is a reflection loop. Why everyone expect models to work end-to-end? Broken and incomplete understanding of the world is a feature, it's a source of chaos required for creativity. Models do not need to check themselves, you have an external critic loop for this.
    1
  495. ​ @louisf2506 and it is not true, for the vast majority of problems Python is utterly unsuitable and there are dozens of better options every time. In fact, cannot think of a single problem where Python is the best possible choice or even close to the top.
    1
  496. I hate idiots who even use the term "transpiler". Dumb code monkeys invented it, it has nothing to do with any academic CS.
    1
  497. How can C# even be mentioned in the same context as C++ and Rust? It's for a very different niche that does not even overlap with the niche of C++ and Rust. Oh, and even more funny, this guy really think that an "ecosystem" of existing libraries is somehow a huge advantage rather than a huge liability that is going to swamp your progress unavoidably. Hilarious.
    1
  498.  @duncanw9901  you can do the same with OCaml, adding passes to compiler is trivial. Plus, there's PPX, which is quite a bit more flexible than TH.
    1
  499. ​ @YeetYeetYe so, you're a bottom of a barrel and an awful engineer. You'll be among the first to be replaced by glorified stochastic parrots, because even they are better than you.
    1
  500.  @jordixboy  No, you can get a delusion that you "learned" something "FREELY and on your OWN". In the vast majority of cases those who fell to this delusion did not really learn anything. They memorised a few unrelated facts and tricks, and it left them with mythical thinking, not a systematic knowledge. One can argue that you can learn medicine the same way, just go to a library and read all the books. Spoiler alert: you cannot. You'll get an assortment of unrelated facts and you'll fail to acquire a systematic knowledge. In any domain, in any discipline one must be guided in order to get this system, to be able to link all pieces of knowledge together and to start producing new coherent knowledge. CS is not any different. And I firmly believe that software engineering must also introduce the same very strict regulations as civil engineering, for the safety reasons. This world runs on software, and we hear about crap software written by uneducated monkeys wreaking havoc on a daily basis. All those personal data leaks, falling to crypto-lockers, the recent NATS debacle, and so on. We need to keep all the incapable ones out of this profession, and start regulating it rigorously.
    1
  501.  @Zer-ei4co  have you heard of the recent air traffic control debacle? That's why. This industry must be purged of low quality trash and very strict standards must be imposed. There are far too many awful programmers, and they are causing far too much damage. We'll be better off with 1/100 the number of developers, but with only the prpper high quality engineers left.
    1
  502.  @Zer-ei4co  it is not an "elitism" when there is a very real elite and an insane difference between the elite and the maggots.
    1
  503.  @milanpospisil8024  sorry to break it for you, but for those who have fundamental knowledge there are no "new things" in IT. Nothing new was invented in the last couple of decades. Everything is just a crappy rehash of the same old things that were tried and discarded a few times before. You can be genuinely confounded by the "fast moving" and "ever changing" world of IT, while us greybeards just giggle at your confusion. Learn the fundamentals and there will be no "new things" for you too.
    1
  504.  @milanpospisil8024  those "new" libraries and frameworks always repeat the same old patterns over and over again. Nothing really new is happening. Yes, they're getting more and more ugly and overengineered, and the really smart thing to do is to simply ignore the vast majority of those libraries and frameworks, but if for some reason you're forced to use them - not really a problem, they're all the same. For the neural networks - hardware capabilities changed, making things practically useful that were previously only toys for researchers. But fundamentally nothing changed, really. Same goes for many other things - now compilers can employ optimisations that were only theorised previously, because they were too costly, and these days nobody cares about those costs. Good. But still nothing new and everything was described in the papers published in the 80s.
    1
  505. ​ @edumorango is not web the most low paid sector in the industry? Conpared to finance, for example? And there is no javascript in HFT, mind you.
    1
  506.  @scotthinton4610  and it is clearly done out of desperation. Too hard to find good engineers, once you have them too wasteful to have them working on an UI.
    1
  507. @yekim008  a former engineer turned occultist crackpot. Sad case, really.
    1
  508.  @yekim008  he was a crackpot, end of story
    1
  509.  @charlescoult  clearly English is not your native language.
    1
  510.  @monad_tcp  I'm so glad I'm not exposed to this world you're describing, I genuinely perceived Prime as the averagest of the average and that was the reason I follow him, out of curiosity.
    1
  511. LLMs must not try to detect code issues directly. LLM must translate a code it's reading into a set of constraints that a human developer would have expected from this code, and then run a proof assistant proving that the implementation conforms to the constraints. LLMs are not good with logic, they must employ external tools for it. Just like, you know, humans.
    1
  512. In web everything is massively overengineered, for no good reason at all. Just stay away from web, and you'll be set for decades with just a fundamental knowledge. Nothing changes outside of this fad-ridden, pathetic world of web.
    1
  513.  @lordmoma2025  if you went a little bit further and learned how MMU work, about supervisors / monitors, about the hardware VMs, all from the first principles, Docker would have been a trivial concept for you.
    1
  514.  @Muskar2  and this is exactly why you need to understand the levels lower than C - to be able to use it (and everything above it) to its maximum potential.
    1
  515.  @DemiImp  I am talking about learning computer architecture and studying at least one platform (even if it is a toy one) thoroughly, for it is the only way to understand performance implications of things you do in high level languages such as C. Also, I believe learning Forth can be extremely beneficial for everyone, including very high level languages users.
    1
  516.  @DemiImp  you explained why 99% of the developers suck and why 99.9% of the software written sucks. It is a form of Dunning-Kruger effect - they write slow and buggy code and don't even realise that they're doing it wrong. But why do you think it should be like this? I believe, those 99% of developers need to be kicked out of this industry and go flip burgers and mop floors, since even glorified stochastic parrots can do their job better.
    1
  517.  @halorx9863  now try again, in English. What you just said makes no sense. Assembly language is a thin layer of mnemonic syntax parsed directly into machine code, with some.rudimentary macros support and labels address calculation (often delegated to later linking).
    1
  518. Huh? Did CLIs ever been away to start coming back now? GUIs were always no more than primitive toys.
    1
  519.  @user-oe4id9eu4v  another one. Yes, they are low level - in terms of a level of abstraction, not in how close they are to hardware (yet, both are pretty close in comparison to the real high-level languages). You learned something new today.
    1
  520.  @user-oe4id9eu4v  and? so what? Ever seen JavaCard?
    1
  521.  @La0bouchere  on a semantics landscape they are indeed very close together, as it is all that matters. Someone who only know C and Java knows only one kind of languages and will have hard time understanding ML or APL.
    1
  522.  @RotatingBuffalo  so? You really see these tiny differences as "fundamental"? Funny. Now compare both C and Java type systems to, say, a Hindley-Milner. Or to F*.
    1
  523.  @myname2462  aren't you a puny ignorant code monkey? Yes you are indeed.
    1
  524.  @atiedebee1020  we are talking about Rust here, which was very heavily influenced by ML. And by "no one ever heard of" you just exposed yourself as an ignorant code monkey, who really should not have opinions on languages.
    1
  525.  @ardnys35  lol, you're dim, aren't you? Do you understand what semantics is? Have you seen many languages outside of the typical code monkey selection? And before you dare to bark that those languages are not practical, you're just ignorant and have no right to have opinions on topics above your cognitive capacity. Don't you dare to claim that, say, APL is not practical, when a lot of quant analysts in finance use its derivatives (like K) all the time. And whe you compare K to C amd C to Python or Java, you'll see that C, Python and Java are just one language with tiny immaterial differences, while K is worlds apart from them all. This whole thread is infested with primitive ignorant code monkeys with hurt egos, who just got confronted with the fact they know absolutely nothing about the languages. So funny when code monkeys get defensive and protect their ignorance.
    1
  526.  @HrHaakon  nope. They are absolutely external to the language. Can be (and often are) implemented as a separate pass that knows nothing about the underlying language. It is very misleading to call this crap 'macros".
    1
  527.  @HrHaakon  not just some reason, but a very good reason.
    1
  528.  @МаркЧолак  there are no "elite" developers you dummy. There are just adequate engineers, and there are utter trash engineers. Those who believe Javascript is a pinnacle of human civilisation are trash engineers, obviously. Any problems with that? And, good luck with your pitiful career which is heading to an abrupt end with all the CRUD monkeys being replaced by a glorified Markov chain that'll do a much better job than you all.
    1
  529.  @5dollasubwayfootlong  you're a funny java monkey. Funny and pathetic. I worked once on a single code baee (one very specialised and very expensive CAD) that contained code in Fortran, PL/I, C#, Perl, Tcl and half a dozen of own DSLs, all acccumulated for over 30 years. I work on code bases that contain a lot of K, C++ and System Verilog with a good amount of Haskell added. You know, monkey, the kind of jobs that pay really well, especially the HFT jobs. There is always a lot of languages involved. But you, patbetitc monkey, would not know, nobody would ever let you anywhere close to such code bases. All you can hope for is some boring low paid CRUD trash.
    1
  530.  @MrR8686  what a sad fate, to be employed as a java monkey. All java jobs are boring corporate drudgery, and pay is crappy.
    1
  531.  @csehszlovakze  wtf are you babbling about, dummy? Did not I say that python is a pile of crap?
    1
  532.  @In3F  another code monkey with an overblown ego? You're funny
    1
  533.  @tiranito2834  you know absolutely nothing of PLT, do you? Java is absolutely low level. It is an eager imperative language wirh an always explicit control flow. It makes it an even lower level langiage semantically than C++, which provides a lot of features for a very implicit control flow. Go learn some other languages, other than the usual trash amateurs learn. There is a huge world beyond all those dumb C, Java, C++, Go, Python, Javascript and all other very similar crap. As someone wbo implemented some interpreters and conlilers you should also know how blurred the line between these two is.
    1
  534.  @tiranito2834  given that GC is the biggest difference between C and Java semantics, it makes you even more delusional than I originally thought. Look, code monkey, I understand you're butthurt and do not like being exposed to the true depths of your ignorance, but you'll have to deal with this fact eventually. Better sooner than later.
    1
  535.  @tiranito2834  30 years.of.experience.with one single.language is not going to add up to 30 years of accumulated knowledge. You're truly pathetic, code monkey, and your butthurt is delightful.
    1
  536.  @tiranito2834  entertain the audience, code monkey. Provide your formal proof that Java is a "high-level" language. Will be hilarious. I am sure you're a product of some bootcamp, or a college dropout at most.
    1
  537.  @logicaestrex2278  lol, kiddo, there is no point im teaching this kind of trash, they are hopeless and will never be able to learn. But mocking them is important, for the innocent bystanders to see the importance of learning and horrors of becoming ignorant and worthless.
    1
  538. @baejisoozy  another ignoramus who never studied PLT, yet dares to have opinions? Try to define in your own words, what's the difference between C and Java, and you'll end up with two formal semantics that are 90% overlapping. If you think that GC or a presence of explicit pointer arithmetic are really important, think again.
    1
  539.  @logicaestrex2278  and yet you did exactly this, little piggy. You managed to repeat the same.year of experience a few time, without acquiring any knowledge at.all. Becoming a clueless monkey in the process.
    1
  540. @ and yet this is exactly what you did, you repeated the same year of experience a few times, without getting any knowledge at all.
    1
  541. @baejisoozy  and this monkey dares to think of itself as a programmer. You're so pathetic.
    1
  542. The only right way is to use meta-languages, and build hierarchies of narrowly scoped eDSLs on top of them. People who use fixed languages simply cannot program.
    1
  543.  @skeetskeet9403  really? Mind pointing at a single implementation of an indirect threaded code in Rust? I'm not even asking about a direct one. You cannot implement a fast FSM of any kind in Rust, simply for the lack of any tools for expressing irreducible CFG. What else to discuss here? It's a severe limitation, consciously made. It makes Rust unusable for quite a wide range of things.
    1
  544.  @skeetskeet9403  Nope, you cannot have control flow in between inline assembly blocks (and same limitation applies to C++ too, for obvious reasons). Goto must be supported by the IR, and inline assembly is bypassed as opaque blocks through IR, so it must be a reducible CFG inside.
    1
  545.  @Sn1per9CZE  you have a limited experience and a limited set of tools and methods you're using. Now, try to implement a fast threaded code interpreter. Nope, you cannot do it. Try to implement (e.g., using procedural macros) a fast parser generator. I mean, fast. Not your typical parsing combinators or a large switch. Try to implement, say, an embedded Prolog-like DSL in Rust - again, with as much efficiency as possible, meaning a WAM-like compilation scheme. Goto is mandatory for efficient compilation of anything that end up generating irreducible CFG.
    1
  546.  @DipsAndPushups  now, compare Rust with all of its existing tooling to MISRA-C and the most powerful tooling available for it. The comparison won't even be fair, Rust is nothing but a funny toy and it will be decades before it'll be mature enough to get into the domains where MISRA-C is used.
    1
  547. ​​​ @zesky6654 well, who would have thought, business is incapable of self-regulating. This is exactly what government is for. Otherwise we would have witch doctors in hospitals (they're cheaper!), kids with an experience of assembling a lego set once building bridges, etc. So why it is ok to have self-taughts and bootcamp graduates to develop software, while it is obvious for everyone that a witch doctor in a hospital is a bad idea?
    1
  548. And this next word prediction is all you need to build and AGI. It is already an AGI with even small 7B models.
    1
  549. ​ @comradepeter87 to think harder LLM must think aloud, write down the thoughts, use tools to verify them, and do so in many iterations. The harder it thinks, the more tokens it must produce.
    1
  550.  @JW-nc4fi  again, you fail to understand why a "fancy autofill" is just exactly enough to build an AGI capable of solving priblems and inventing things.
    1
  551. Why it's always people with close to zero PLT knowledge who make languages tier lists?
    1
  552. This is how it feels for everyone learning top to bottom. When you learn bottom up, every new thing is just a tiny addition on a pile of existing solid knowledge. Those who learnt thr wrong way cannot connect new topic to an existing knowledge, since this knowledge is hollow. Bottom up is the only right way, it is so weird people are even arguing otherwise.
    1
  553. look, it is not you who take risks in an ambitious high-tech startup, it is the investors. Employees get paid handsomely and walk away with money and experience if things go sour.
    1
  554. ​ @totalermist are you from the past? Pay is not geographically bound now. True that this is only an option for the already fairly experienced ones.
    1
  555. Just do nand2tetris, it will guide you through the hard stuff. Also, read the "Code" by Petzold.
    1
  556.  @aarondanen3150  the best way to learn how C compilers work is to write one. Gcc is insanely huge and complex, a compiler can be much simpler - see lcc, tcc for example.
    1
  557. Decision to design a weakly-typed language is genuinely bad. Decision to design a language with separate statements and expressions, yet pretending to have functional features is bad. Decision to design a language without an integer type support is abysmally bad. Decision to design a language with a default dynamic scoping (and then to have an audacity to claim being influenced by Scheme) is unforgibable.
    1
  558.  @nchomey  debuggers make you fail in the very wrong way.
    1
  559.  @isodoubIet  it's really hilarious when code monkeys think they are superior. You realise that all your interactive debugging experience is utterly worthless? You simply have no idea how to debug the right way, yet your hurt ego does not allow you to admit your deficiency.
    1
  560. ​ @exec.producer2566 you cannot teach yourself anything at all if you don't have a solid degree already. People who did not study systematically in a structured way cannot learn new things systematically. They always end up with huge gaps and mythical thinking.
    1
  561. ​ @bobwilkinsonguitar6142 american problems are a laughing matter for the rest of thr world.
    1
  562. JS is by far not an extreme side of dynamism. Smalltalk is.
    1
  563. Been in this industry for over 30 years. Have no doubts you all will lose your jobs to AI.
    1
  564.  @matt_milack  me? I'm working hard on making sure your jobs are on a way out.
    1
  565.  @JP-jf1oc  you have no idea what LLMs are capable of, when paired with the right tools and provided with proper feedback loops. I was an AI developer before the previous AI winter - worked on expert systems and proof assistants. Now, LLMs finally provided the missing piece of the puzzle, combined with the old-style symbolic reasoning they can replace all scientists and engineers.
    1
  566.  @JP-jf1oc  if there's anything that can topple capitalism, it's this. So bring it on! I want to see the abundance communism. It's unavoidable anyway.
    1
  567.  @marcs9451  do you understand how spineless tagless G-machine works? How's your tail recursion even relevant?
    1
  568. Frankly, there should not be any frontend jobs. Glorified Markov chain can do this crap better than humans anyway.
    1
  569. This guy have no faintest idea of how to use LLMs and what they're capable of (even the tiny local 7B models). Good. More advantages to those who actually know how to use them.
    1
  570.  @Vancha112  so what? These guys are not very proficient in the pre-winter AI methods
    1
  571.  @matejpesl1  two or three columns of code, or code and documentation columns, or code and terminal with logs - there is always more important information than your project structure.
    1
  572. There are huge hordes of code monkeys who bring no value to our civilisation, or, rather, cause immense damage. If AI can get rid of them all and streamline the primitive coding tasks they've been monkeying around with - great, bring it on!
    1
  573.  @Asto508  all modern systems are distributed, besides the most trivial and dumb ones. Again, I never once had a use case for a debugger. Not a single time in my whole life.
    1
  574.  @ricardoamendoeira3800  for this you need a tool to bag and replay all the external communication this subsystem is receiving, both analog and digital. In general it is very hard to do. More available in soft real time systems (see the bagging functionality in ROS for example), but nearly impossible in hard real time, where simply adding the bagging feature exceeds the system capacity.
    1
  575.  @donkeyy8331  you need a profiler to find such things, not a debugger.
    1
  576.  @nitsujism  games? real-time? Lol. There's nothing real-time there. Nothing bad will happen if you skip a frame or two. Nothing will crash if you pause rendering altogether and inspect. It's a soft real-time at most, nothing interesting. Audio processing - yes, can be hard real-time, but essentially it's just a stream in, stream out, no complex feedback, so you can just bag all the input and process it at any pace you like. Now, try a proper hard real-time system. Like, automotive, or industrial control, where there's a physical component that won't wait for your code to catch up. And, no, I have no pity for people who fix segfaults with debuggers. They're beyond salvation. They cannot even use memory sanitisers properly.
    1
  577.  @nitsujism  that depends on what kind of logging you're doing. There's a lot of zero-overhead logging and signalling techniques.
    1
  578.  @nitsujism  there's Google's capture-thread library (but it's using a mutex, so not quite real-time), there's perfectly lock-free iris library by zxjcarrot, and dozens more. I just drag my own small logging library with me everywhere I go. There a lot of advantages in logging vs. debugging. Disciplined logging documents the system further, and forces you to think of what you're doing. It allows to pinpoint problems where they happen more likely than where they manifest, while debuggers usually do the latter (at least when you start investigation). Logging does not change the code behaviour, while merely compiling in a debug mode changes a lot.
    1
  579.  @Asto508  and? Programmers who have this dumb habit of jumping on a debugger every time they see a problem may (barely) get through the bugs in such primitive non-distributed systems. But they'll be totally lost the moment they need to debug something more complex, as they have no idea how to debug properly. So what's the point in getting such a habit in the first place instead of learning the hard way?
    1
  580.  @Asto508  Far more often than not, in my experience, every developer who have a habit of using debuggers end up being helpless when debugger is not available. Never seen it working the other way around. Yes, debuggers can be potentially useful, especially if you need to inspect some black-box third party pile of code, but for every single case in my practice when I considered reaching for a debugger I always ended up doing something else, and every time it was more efficient than an interactive debugger. That's my problem with the debuggers - their usefulness is vastly overrated, but a lot of people don't know any better.
    1
  581.  @nitsujism  a lot of "successful coders" do a lot of cargo cult things, they're awfully inefficient. Did not you notice how deeply broken this entire industry is, how awful the vast majority of code is? So, no, popularity is not an argument in a slightest. Once again, the biggest problem with the debuggers is that you'll end up inspecting the symptom, not the cause. They have nothing to offer you to help finding the cause of a problem. You still need to use other tools. So why bother with debuggers at all, to start with?
    1
  582.  @nitsujism  firstly, if you got yourself into such a predicament in the first place, in your own code, you have a far bigger problem than a mere bug. Your code is just bad. Secondly, the regular multi-level logging should give you more than enough insight into all state changes throughout life cycle, by default, from the moment you wrote this code. If you need to add more logging, you did it wrong.
    1
  583.  @nitsujism  this is what conditional logging and ring buffer kogging is for. Same as you'd have to do with a debugger anyway as you won'r step through thousands of iteratiins manually. I even do ring buffer logging on MCUs, and when some crash condition happens I extract the log for the final few milliseconds of its life.
    1
  584.  @PapaVikingCodes  it means you developed bad habits, you debug in a clumsy and inefficient way, and you may get quite confused in a situation where you need to debug, but debuggers are impossible.
    1
  585.  @PapaVikingCodes  keep demonstrating your incompetence. Say, you observe a segfault. Go on, use your debugger. You will get a stack trace at a point where segfault happened. You, for being an uneducated code monkey, will likely spend a ton on time stepping through that code. But the real cause of the sagfault is somewhere else, where the memory this code refers to accidentally was actually corrupted. Half an our of runtime ago. Your debugger will not be of any use here, yet you'll waste time anyway, since you don't know any better ways.
    1
  586. If you're working with a low-level language and rely on debugger to catch your mistakes, I don't want you anywhere near any mission-critical code. Not in automotive, not in medical robotics, not in aerospace, not in industrial automation. Your way is guaranteed to introduce a lot more bugs than it's possible to tolerate. Firstly, debuggers do not show you where the problem is. They let you see where the problem manifested. Especially if it's a memory-related problem, you can see its effects far away from the real cause. Then you'll find some hackish workaround and trot away happily, thinking you fixed the bug. The real developers never rely on debuggers. We'd rather stick to MISRA-C harsh rules, use all possible static analysis tools we can find, build extensive testing infrastructure, build zero-overhead logging wherever it's possible. Debuggers will never replace any of this, and will never be of any real added value when you should do all the above anyway.
    1
  587.  @Spirrwell  use a certified compiler (like CompCERT) to make sure that it does what it says on the tin. And, yes, I routinely find bugs in compilers. Never once I had to use a debugger for this, it would not have been useful at all. And often you cannot even debug the compilers, e.g., I found a couple of bugs in CUDA - had to treat it as a black box and did not even attempt disassembling the compiler itself. Logging, instrumentation and fuzzying helps. Learning to jump on a debugger as a first knee-jerk reaction to any bug is really a bad thing. I wish most programmers never knew debuggers exist. Learning the hard way is better. You did not waste time, you gained experience that early debugger users would have never had a chance to earn. As for the older code - I did not have to use debuggers when working on ancient (even back then already ancient) Fortran 77 code base, with barely any static analysis and instrumentation tools available, so I'm not sure why would I need a debugger for a modern MISRA-C loaded with tons of very powerful tooling. Better discipline trumps debuggers massively.
    1
  588. Experience and craftsmanship are orders of magnitude more important than "talent" and "intelligence".
    1
  589.  @Carnezz  we do use a lot of mental math to build spaceships - it is a part of the "engineering intuition".
    1
  590. ​ @LifeWithRilla  you realise that a lot of FAANG engineers are trash? You should have guessed from the quality of their products. Also, no, I don't have any college debts, I got my education many years ago, in the Soviet Union, for free. I suspect you're one of those uneducated self-proclaimed engineers, right? I'm sorry for breaking the news to you, but you're not an engineer. Self-taughts are not engineers. Bootcamp grads are not engineers. A tiny minority of them manage to get to a level comparable to the proper engineers, but even they are deeply flawed.
    1
  591.  @stevezelaznik5872  2 months of fundamentals vs. 4 years of fundamentals a STEM graduate should get? Right. That'd be definitely enough...
    1
  592. ​ @cat-le1hf  ROTFL, you're funny. Tell me the name of a bootcamp which graduates can take my job - I'll hire them all!
    1
  593.  @cat-le1hf  also, do you realise that the "most jobs" that are suitable for bootcamp dummies can and will be taken by a glorified Markov chain? And it's delightful.
    1
  594.  @TheRealXartaX  "more advanced", as in sitting at the lowest tier of the Chomsky hierarchy. Slow clap. Code monkeys are so confident in their puny understanding!
    1
  595.  @CommanderRiker0  you don't know much of the modern PLT, do you? Regular languages are the most primitive and the most useless grammars. We have far better tools.
    1
  596.  @CommanderRiker0  so, being three levels above on the Chomsky hierarchy is now "syntax details"? Go back to school.
    1
  597.  @CommanderRiker0  do you understand the Chomsky hierarchy? Regular languages are the lowest tier. Yet, people try to do all kinds of weird gymnastics to parse context-free languages using regular grammars, for no reason at all besides mere familiarity with the regular languages and lack of understanding of more complex grammars. While in fact you need a proper context-free grammar, or, even better, just a Turing-complete parser. There is nothing wrong with the mathematics of the regular languages. The problem is the practical applicability of such - they're very much useless. Leave regular languages where they belong - as a mathematical curiosity. Use PEGs or GLRs to parse real-world complex context-free or context-sensitive grammars.
    1
  598.  @CommanderRiker0  again... Regular expressions can only match regular languages. And regular grammars are not interesting, not useful in practice. You cannot recognise if a given string is, say, a valid JSON, using a regular expressions - because JSON is a context-free grammar, not a regular grammar. Looks like you did not read your formal languages textbook past the chapters describing regular languages. Try to re-visit your understanding of grammars, understand what Chomsky hierarchy is. It's all still mathematics, I'm not talking about any "implementation details" whatsoever.
    1
  599.  @CommanderRiker0  lol, you have no mathematical background whatsoever if you stopped in your development on puny little primitive regular grammars and failed to comprehend the formalism of context-free and context-sensitive grammars. Again. Regular languages are not useful, because they do not exist in real world. Uneducated dimwits try to shoehorn regular expressions where they do not belong, try to parse context-free languages with regular grammars, and end up producing horrible hacks. You do not understand formal languages. You do not understand the mathematics behind the language theory. Stop embarrassing yourself.
    1
  600.  @CommanderRiker0  to clarify: every single time someone is using a regexp in programming, they are doing it wrong and should have used something else (like PEG) instead. There is no single practical use case where regexps are justified. Not a single one.
    1
  601.  @CommanderRiker0  is not it what I told you? Regular expressions are a mathematical curiosity which should have stayed in CS textbooks. They have no place in practice. Disagree? Name a single use case where you think the use of regular expressions is justified. I'll show you how wrong you are.
    1
  602.  @CommanderRiker0  so, I guess you chickened and won't even try to name a single problem that in your mind should be solved with regular expressions. As expected.
    1
  603.  @CommanderRiker0  you won't get away so easily. Name a real world problem which can be reduced to a regular language. Almost all real problems are at least context-free.
    1
  604.  @CommanderRiker0  so, you chickened out, again. You won't be able to name a real-world problem that should be reduced to regular languages.
    1
  605.  @pirateFinn  I demanded a single real world example, where matching regular languages is a solution. Not a single one was named, for a trivial reason - they do not exist. And, no, regexp is never the simplest solution either. PEG is very much a superset of regular expressions, but much less obtuse. For every single case where you'd use a regexp you should have used PEG instead.
    1
  606.  @OverG88  I'm a long time Chisel user, so no, I do know Scala, and, likely, I know it better than you do. There's one thing that kills Scala claim to be functional language - it runs on JVM, and there is no tail call optimisation guarantee. Scala compiler optimises statically resolvable tail recursion, but it does not optimise generic tail calls, therefore more complex recursion schemes are impossible to implement without running out of stack. Also, OCaml and F# are not "functional", they are functional-first, but also contain a ton of imperative features which are absolutely mandatory for them to be useful at all.
    1
  607. how funny, when an ignorant code monkey dares to have a dumb opinion and calls rhose who are orders of magnitude more capable than the said monkey "idiots".
    1
  608.  @random6033  there's still quite a few cases where Fortran is faster than C, thanks to its implicit aliasing semantics. To get C code closer to this performance you must litter it with explicit `restrict` specifiers (and mind you they're not supported by all compilers and are not available in C++).
    1
  609. Because if you're using abstractions you don't understand over layers you don't know anything about, you're unavoidably will produce an utter crap. Abstractions are only useful when thoroughly understood.
    1
  610. Prolog came back as miniKanren and alike - it works better as an embedded DSL than as a standalone language.
    1
  611.  @natescode  And Prolog is a very powerful tool for LLMs. I am using Prolog as an LLM reasoning tool, forcing a critic agent to convert the reasoning essence into Prolog and evaluate it, providing feedback if logic fails.
    1
  612. So far all attempts at measuring productivity objectively failed. All papers were deeply flawed. This is not going to be any different.
    1
  613.  @luckerooni1153  Carmack is very narrowly focused. Yet you probably canno see it from the depth of your ignorance.
    1
  614. Full MISRA-C is just as restrictive. But I guess web coders will feel intimidated quite a bit by any such reasonable system.
    1
  615. Org mode is so much more than puny markdown. There's even a spreadsheet embedded.
    1
  616.  @T0m1s  sounds like you only ever did very primitive forms of development, with small projects, consisting mostly of a single language, without any decent logging and instrumenting infrastructure (people who step through code in debuggers manually simply don't know how to program, it's the worst waste of time imaginable), and clearly you never had cases where you had to debug elusive, hard to reproduce heisenbugs. Funny when kids with their toys criticise professional tools for being too complex. Stick to your toys indeed, kids, but remember that you're not real programmers and your experience have nothing to do with what real programmers deal with.
    1
  617. You can also make modern art piece with sh*t. It'll still be a sh*t, but people will queue to smell it.
    1
  618. Robert Martin caused more damage to this industry than everyone else combined.
    1
  619. I really hope that in the near future the vast majority of new people in software development will be engineers coming from other engineering disciplines, already equipped with rigour and an engineering way of thinking. The junior "software developers" who are clueless about everything (software development included) were the most destructive force in this industry, and were never really needed to start with.
    1
  620. And CVS was actually fine. Even by today standards.
    1
  621. Racket, or any other Lisp with proper macros, or even Forth. Any meta-language is entirely on the other level, unreachable for the fixed languages.
    1
  622. "If emojis are a part of your culture, you have a bad culture" - ancient Egyptians feel attacked.
    1
  623. ​ @DezXereanas automotive, aerospace, medical, robotics, finance, telecom - there is a lot of proper engineering domains outside of the crappy web world.
    1
  624. Stop babbling nonsense and learn about RTTI and reflection in general.
    1
  625. "Talent" is a myth long debunked.
    1
  626. Right. There is never a reason to use vim. Emacs is better for all possible use cases.
    1
  627.  @arcuscerebellumus8797  you're saying that the overwhelming majority of "developers" are code monkeys who do not understand even the most basic foundations of their trade? It does not surprise me, though I usually avoid calling them "developers". And, no, this kind of "developers" is pretty much useless and I would not trust them with getting anything done, at all. You can see the outcome of such "development" in the examples like the currently hyped Horizon IT scandal.
    1
  628.  @marcelo-ramos  are they really "programmers" then?
    1
  629.  @arcuscerebellumus8797  this attitude is exactly what got us to the Horizon scandal.
    1
  630. found a whiny beta. We all know that real men only use FORTRAN.
    1
  631. Skill contribution to the overall productivity is negligible. Proper management and communication matter far more than individual developers skill. You can take a competent manager and a pile of hafwit dropouts and they'll outperform an unmanaged team of Johnatan Blows.
    1
  632. From academia, from another engineering disciplines, etc. Just like we should have been doing all along. There is zero value in fresh programmers who know nothing but programming (worse, just some basics of it).
    1