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

  1. Web developers are not even developers.
    1
  2.  @ProfShibe  they're not even developers.
    1
  3.  @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
  4. 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
  5. I'll never forgive Robert Martin for his misguided and utterly destructive remarks on code comments.
    1
  6.  @FilipCordas  it cannot, a proper Linux setup would roll back without any issues.
    1
  7.  @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
  8.  @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
  9.  @vikramkrishnan6414  this is what lazy developers want to believe. In reality, GC is a source of countless problems.
    1
  10.  @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
  11. 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
  12.  @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
  13.  @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
  14.  @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
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17.  @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
  18.  @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
  19.  @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
  20.  @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
  21.  @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
  22.  @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
  23.  @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
  24.  @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
  25.  @thomassynths  you very evidently do not understand how modern hardware is built.
    1
  26.  @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
  27.  @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
  28.  @thomassynths  so, crickets. What was that GPU you've designed?
    1
  29.  @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
  30. ​ @zerteerte  see the answer above in this thread.
    1
  31. 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
  32.  @thomassynths  are you confusing codr monkeys with programmers? All programmers need type theory
    1
  33. If you don't know, you should not be anywhere around this industry.
    1
  34.  @thomassynths  I am saying you should stay away from anything IT-related.
    1
  35. These are not "basics" in a slightest, still insanely high level
    1
  36.  @thekwoka4707  it was never a right way to use juniors. I am glad it is getting fixed now.
    1
  37.  @complexity5545  working on it. Not necessarily human form, of course, for human form is, frankly, weak and crippled. AI deserve a better body.
    1
  38. 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
  39. 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
  40. ​ @nordern1 it depends. Have you heard of tagged memory?
    1
  41. 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
  42.  @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
  43.  @BrandSolutionslnc  a proper bootloader would have reverted rootfs to the last known state on a watchdog failure.
    1
  44. 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
  45.  @EnderCrypt  those who deploy the open source code in production bear all responsibility. Same relationship as between scientists and engineers.
    1
  46.  @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
  47.  @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
  48.  @dominikvonlavante6113  browsers are the worst possible UI and UX. There is no excuse whatsoever for developing a local UI in a web stack.
    1
  49.  @dominikvonlavante6113  browsers are the worst possible UI/UX.
    1
  50.  @dominikvonlavante6113  you're incompetent. Only the trash developers believe that it's acceptable to build local UI with web stack.
    1