Comments by "Lepi Doptera" (@lepidoptera9337) on "Fireship" channel.

  1. They used to write those in COBOL and machine language (not even assembler!) and they worked just fine. ;-)
    2
  2. Two thumbs up. ;-)
    2
  3. Coding is dead? I wouldn't know. I am programming an embedded CPU with limited memory and power restrictions to run a real-time animation on a smart-watch display right now. I doubt there is a tool out there (AI or not) that would even know how to compress the custom character set that I am using into the available Flash memory or how to perform the graphics compositing without using ten times the available RAM. Everything is "easy and straight forward" without resource constraints and there are plenty of solutions out there that can do this with very limited coding... but once the platform is limited those canned solutions are running out of steam extremely quickly.
    2
  4. There is not much special about LISP in that sense. Like Forth it's a bit of a brain-frell syntactically, but tastes differ and if you only had a choice between assembly language and Lisp, Lisp might still be the better choice for most applications. Of course, if you are given the choice between Python and Lisp, then Lisp goes out the window fast (at least for people who have more than 30% sanity left).
    2
  5. I just wish you were that advanced as far as smoking is concerned and your cars still smell of gasoline. ;-)
    1
  6. Dudes... a rundown of programming languages is NOT an education. It's just more internet bullshit. :-)
    1
  7. That's because your brother is the kind of micromanaging middle manager who doesn't want to hire a creative professional who can do things that he can't. There are welders who can't weld a rod to a sheet without setting the concrete on fire and then there are welders who can make a life sized dinosaur out of old cars. Your brother's employees are of the first kind. :-)
    1
  8. No it isn't. Every compiler in the world compiles loops and other control structures to the machine language equivalent (branch instructions) of "go to".
    1
  9. OOP is objectively stupid but there are a few use cases. I generally find that it works well for graphics libraries, but yeah... beyond that the air gets rare.
    1
  10. Linux on the desktop has "not invented here" disease.
    1
  11. Verilog isn't about physical design. It's a general purpose system design language that just happens to have "to silicon" compilers. It also won't help you to become a chip designer. That's about much, much more than knowing one of the input languages.
    1
  12. Yes, but how do you pry the box with the serial number for the extinct COBOL compiler out of the dead engineer's bony hands? ;-)
    1
  13. The "I will become a full stack developer by watching YouTube videos!" war cry is a drug. :-)
    1
  14.  @hyperpony4865  Millions of posts on the internet tell you that you can become a full stack developer in three weeks by taking an introduction to Python on Youtube and then you will earn a million bucks as a self-certified software engineer. ;-)
    1
  15. People have a tendency to do the insane thing first, then suffer for a long time, only to discover that everything can be done much easier.
    1
  16. OOP doesn't make code readable if you use inheritance a lot. In that case it actually disperses and even duplicates code. This is a big deal if you have to fix a problem with a method in one class because now you also have to check the code in all derived classes that have a modified version of that method. It's basically the same problem as with forking, just internally to one program.
    1
  17. You do understand that refactoring is the antithesis to "never break a working system" super-rule, right? ;-) Here is the thing... you aren't actually testing your code. You are testing your code's response to stimuli. Why do you need to refactor it for that? Unit-testing is usually done for unit-testing's sake. It keeps somebody's OCD happy at the cost of hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars. In reality that's almost never the level at which serious code problems occur. Let me give you a popular example of what happens in real life: Linux clones of Word are basically useless. Why? Not because of the billion bugs that they come with. You could fix every single one of those bugs and they would still remain broken because of the fonts. As soon as you import a non-trivial Word document into one of these tools you have to start the formatting all over, again. Nothing at the unit level and nothing at the application level can fix that. That "bug" was put in there by Microsoft's legal department by copyrighting Windows fonts.
    1
  18. You could decompose your entire program into more or less atomic functions to avoid death by bracketing. ;-)
    1
  19.  @freesoftwareextremist8119  Every modern language has functions and if that is not enough for you, then you can use your language to create code for you, which is much, much, much more flexible than any form of macro for language extension. You simply don't know what you are doing. ;-)
    1
  20.  @freesoftwareextremist8119  Dude... macros are a very limited form of language extension. Generating code is universal. You can generate code in the same language, any other language or you can write a compiler for your own language. You can write code that writes code that writes code. All of this is about as old as the stone age. Were you born yesterday? :-)
    1
  21. I began coding in Basic and 6502 assembler. Didn't do a thing for me. I didn't get any good at it until I had to teach CS to students as part of a TA job. Even then I didn't do it like a pro until an old dude took me aside and told me to forget half the stuff that I knew about the theory. He replaced all that bullshit in my mind with a few completely counterintuitive strategies that opened my eyes to what is really important (function) and what isn't (form, which is all they "teach" online).
    1
  22.  @DrunkenUFOPilot  The language collector who doesn't know the first thing about programming is here. ;-)
    1
  23. No.
    1
  24.  @xsael8501  Or so the distrologers like to think while they change 0.01% of the code.
    1
  25. Yes, it can, but it's just as limited as all the other AI products I have tried, so far. If you ask it "What's the outside temperature?" it answers "The outside temperature is 25 degrees Celsius". Dudes, if all I want is a random string generator, I write my own. ;-)
    1
  26. This has nothing to do with capitalism. Meta has wasted $50 billion, if not more, on what a serious computer game developer would call a toy game so far... with no usable results. The simple fact is that the industry has put itself into a position of maximum inefficiency and that has bread an entire class of lazy throw-away coder. People with zero algorithmic knowledge, zero creativity and zero interest in anything that doesn't spell "frontend", "middleware" or "backend". Will these people become obsolete? Absolutely. These jobs shouldn't have existed in the first place. It's not a good use of human resources.
    1
  27. HDLs are not really hardware design languages. They are system design languages which have compilers to FPGAs and (and hence all by themselves useless) logic chip designs. The latter can't be used without physical libraries and those are what they actually pay engineers the big bucks for, not for the design of a few registers and state machines. Any child can do the latter.
    1
  28. Yes. OOP sucks. All versions of OOP are merely window dressing. It's fancy ways of documenting your code. Why? Because once your compiler is done with your code, all OOP has been removed. Your CPU doesn't have classes. It has arithmetic, logic and branch instructions. That's all it has. Everything is done with 32 and 64 bit pointers, no matter what your programming language wants you to believe otherwise. So what are you writing all that OOP code for? Only for yourself and to please your boss. Your CPU doesn't give a you know what. ;-)
    1
  29. You forgot "How to play Chopin like a concert pianist while winning the Super Bowl". :-)
    1
  30. What do you need an open source automatic bullshitter for? Can't you make your own bullshit? ;-)
    1
  31. Yep, and neither solves the really hard problems in programming. Both are basically at the aesthetic level and akin to asking how one should name variables. Nothing important can be learned from either technique. They are too shallow for that.
    1