Mond_

Pet peeves nitpick: it's not even a tuple. Go doesn't have tuples. It just has special-cased "multiple return values", which means that it's often impossible to just stuff the return of a function call (error value and all) into any data structure to aggregate them. You just can't do without first defining a struct since tuples don't exist in Go.

No, I just don't think you have identified a problem in the first place. You've complained a lot, but you've not even been specific enough to point at a single concrete thing! You've been so lacking in specifics I don't even know if you'd prefer Ocaml, Go, or Python-style syntax over Rust! Like, I can't tell since all you've said is that you don't like it, without even telling me how you don't like it or what you prefer!

You say "over-complicated". I disagree, my impression is that is mostly about as complicated as it needs to be to solve the problems it is trying to solve.

? Putting a program into a safe container or isolation boundary (this is roughly what GC is in this context) causes it to be memory safe. This is not an interesting observation. It also causes it to be significantly slower, to the point of not being competitive anymore.

Meh, if these are the main reasons you don't use the language, I don't know what to tell you. I get having preferences, but whether the keyword is `fn` or `func` is such a banal, trivial thing that doesn't matter at all.

> It is still ugly / noisy / overly-complicated and probably could have been done better.

I don't know, it feels like you're just saying that you don't like it, missed the point of the post, and are not giving us anything concrete. Can you list a very clear example of how you'd improve the syntax?

Again, see the post: You can remove things, but you're losing explicitness or other things. If you want a language that's more implicit, this is fine. I don't.

> It means it is no longer possible to draw a line between any two points (portals can shadow portions of the space such that some points are not connectible

This feels a bit like saying that putting a wall in a room makes it non-euclidean since there's now a barrier in the way.

I know where you're coming from, but this is confusing geometry and topology. (Curvature vs. how the space is connected.)

This point has been litigated to death. Read this here: https://matklad.github.io/2023/01/26/rusts-ugly-syntax.html

Almost everything that people think is ugly about Rust's syntax exists for very specific reasons. Most of the time, imo Rust made a good decision, and is just making something explicit.

Some things take time to get used to (e.g. if let), but for most people that's less an issue of syntax, and more an issue of not understanding a powerful feature (e.g. pattern matching deconstructions).

And? What did you think it was going to be? An abstract description that completely ignores the existing compiler?

> IMHO Rust has severe problems and what is considered "modern" is mostly taste.

Really? As opposed to e.g. C or C++ (as the most important languages which Rust is competing with)? Sure, taste plays into everything, but I think a lot of people work with Rust since it's genuinely a better tool.

I hear you on free software being controlled by corporate interests, but that's imo a separate discussion from how good Rust is as a language.

See https://herecomesthemoon.net/2025/06/i-like-helix/, Helix is a very different experience from neovim, and basically everything works out of the box with no configs or setup required.

It's quite impressive how everything just works and how easy onboarding is.

So... have you tried Helix? Covers everything you're asking for, and doesn't require any config fiddling for it.

Then what is the actual goal of that, and what is it being used for?

> * Types are expensive and dont tend to pay off on spikey/experimental/MVP code, most of which gets thrown away.

This is what people say, but I don't think it's correct. What is correct is that say, ten to twenty years ago, all the statically typed languages had other unacceptable drawbacks and "types bad" became a shorthand for these issues.

I'm talking about C (nonstarter for obvious reasons), C++ (a huge mess, footguns, very difficult, presumably requires a cmake guy), Java (very restrictive, slow iteration and startups, etc.). Compared to those just using Python sounds decent.

Nowadays we have Go and Rust, both of which are pretty easy to iterate in (for different reasons).

Eh? As far as I can tell Zig already has more traction than e.g. D, which is listed.

I don't think it's aiming for mainstream adoption anyway, it's a very specific niche.

Considering the performance implications of a full commitment to immutable data structures, I think Rust does a pretty good job here.

Dynamic arrays / vectors / slices or whatever you want to call them are probably the most important or fundamental non-plain-old-data data structure, and in a purely immutable environment these are essentially impossible (or have awful performance characteristics).

> > I wish there was a mainstream, high performance language that made both styles equally ergonomic.

> Unironically, C++.

At best C++ falls under "equally unergonomic".

> That's emphatically not what people "people want". People want to get paid. And creators get paid based on views.

That's nonsense, as a viewer of YouTube videos I do not expect to her paid for this.

I guess it'd be nice if I were paid for watching YouTube, so maybe you have a point after all! :-)

So far Gemma models were capable of running on ordinary GPUs or CPUs, and I think it's safe to assume that this trend is continuing here.

If someone else ships a 100% solution, or a solution that doesn't have the problems your potentially half-baked "80% solution" does, then you might be in trouble.

There's a fine line here: it matters a lot whether we're talking about a "sloppy" 80% solution that later causes problems and is incredibly hard to fix, or if it's a clean minimal subset, which restricts you (by being the minimal thing everyone agrees on) but doesn't have any serious design flaws.

Fair to be annoyed by this, but not very interesting: This is just a minor syntactical pattern that exists for a very good reason.

Syntax is generally the least interesting/important part of languages.

And?

Unlike OpenAI, Deepmind at least signed up for the competition ahead of time.

Agree with Tao though, I am skeptical of any result of this type unless there's a lot of transparency, ideally ahead of time. If not ahead of time, then at least the entire prompt and fine-tune data that was used.

How big is the intersection of modern Javascript developers and FreeBSD users?

Sadly, the C++ language does not exist in a vacuum.

In fact, it exists in a world which contains "an ecosystem", tooling, opinionated build systems, various incompatible compilers, and mountains of legacy baggage, and all of these influence the daily experience of programmers using the language.

Meh.

I think this should be a warning on debug builds and an error on release builds, but it's a relatively minor thing and not a deal breaker by any means.

If this is the worst thing that people would like to see revisited, Zig must be doing amazingly well.

Oh hey, afaik all of this LLM traffic goes through my service!

Set up not too long ago, and afaik pretty load-bearing for this. Feels great, just don’t ask me any product-level questions. I’m not part of the Gemini CLI team, so I’ll try to keep my mouth shut.

Not going to lie, I’m pretty anxious this will fall over as traffic keeps climbing up and up.

Oh boy, I sure can't wait to see the comments on this one!

Schmidhuber sure seems to be a personality, and so far I've mostly heard negative things about his "I invented this" attitude to modern research.

Look, it's just an internet community of people who write blog posts and discuss their interests on web forums.

Asking "What do they do?" is like asking "What do Hackernewsers do?"

It's not exactly a coherent question. Rationalists are a somewhat tighter group, but in the end the point stands. They write and discuss their common interests, e.g. the progress of AI, psychiatry stuff, bayesianism, thought experiments, etc.

I'd say the binary not crashing would certainly be an improvement.

Even better if the type checker specifically highlights the fact that a value can be zero, and prevents compilation of code that doesn't specifically take this possibility into account.

You'll get a runtime panic.

Hey, it's better than lurking undefined behavior and data corruption issues!

Doesn't keep your binary from crashing, though.