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

  1. "the most powerful ui toolkit", really?
    1
  2.  @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
  3.  @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
  4. ​ @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
  5.  @32zim32  radio in your car is likely an SDR. It very much depends on such optimisations.
    1
  6.  @mskiptr  you can consider a graph reduction machine inherently procedural, as it's changing the state of the execution graph.
    1
  7.  @isodoubIet  ok, stay a code monkey then.
    1
  8.  @NeoChromer  yes, using logs and instrumentation is a far better way of doing it than an interactive debugging.
    1
  9. ​ @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
  10.  @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
  11.  @NeoChromer  you have so much more to learn, if this surprises you.
    1
  12.  @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
  13.  @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
  14. 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
  15.  @debasishraychawdhuri  you should not use lexers. Lexerless parsing is superior on all possible levels.
    1
  16.  @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
  17.  @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
  18.  @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
  19.  @CommanderRiker0  if you did, youtube apparently deleted it, I cannot see any messages mentioning removing database entries.
    1
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. 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
  23.  @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
  24.  @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
  25. 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
  26.  @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
  27.  @xybersurfer  if your language is very limited (say, MISRA-C level of limited), proving theorems is way easier than for something too generic.
    1
  28. 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
  29.  @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
  30.  @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
  31.  @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
  32.  @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
  33. 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
  34. Miranda? Pure?
    1
  35. Java achieved sentience and started commenting on youtube videos?!?
    1
  36. 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
  37.  @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
  38.  @halleyscomet0867  Of course it dies not count, the latest C specification is ISO/IEC 9899:2011.
    1
  39. ​ @IAmOxidised7525 Testing is not sufficient, you need a formal verification.
    1
  40. Geminy is right. Immature brains must be protected not only from concepts, but from variadic templates and SFINAE as well.
    1
  41. 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
  42.  @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
  43. Once web code monkey will always stay a web code monkey.
    1
  44. 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
  45.  @ChillAutos  keep coping, this is all you have
    1
  46.  @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
  47.  @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
  48.  @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
  49. Quite evidently you're very incompetent. Let me guess - a web "develpper"? Maybe, some bootcamp graduate? Or, even worse, "self-taught"?
    1
  50. 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