hota_mazi

Assuming the person is serious and not writing this tongue in cheek...

I find it humorous is that all it takes for OP to think the response was written by a human is that it says it was written by a human.

Both responses could have been from AI. Or none. Or just one. Just look at the comments on this thread, nobody can agree. And in the end, it's simply unfalsifiable.

Why even waste time playing this game?

All that matters is the result: was the complaint addressed in the end?

I don't understand these weird hills that people want to die on.

Yeah... no. I don't think there is a best programming language, but I do think dynamically typed languages are worse for AI to code in compared to statically typed ones.

What do you mean?

C is unsafe 100% of the time. Rust is only unsafe in unsafe{} blocks.

> You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.

That's demonstrably not true, people deconvert from religion and other irrational beliefs all the time.

> We tend not to use ORMs, because they're evil.

This is typical Go culture. If it is not readily available in the language or the standard library, it's evil. It's an easy cop out to explain away the gaps in the ecosystem.

Not long ago, the Go team was saying that generics are evil for that very same reason.

Nonsense, Rust has plenty of native libraries for HTTP and JSON.

Whenever I hear "It's never too late to do X", I can't help but think "Well in this case, there is no harm in waiting a bit longer, is there?".

On Windows, I use AltDrag.

XCode has been trying to unleash agentic power for a while now, it's almost like it doesn't want to leave its cage.

Not mentioning the fact that Swift is nonexistent outside of the Apple ecosystem, and worse, Apple is explicitly not supporting it outside of the Apple operating systems.

Show, don't tell.

If you need ten pages to explain your project and even after I read your description, I'm still left confused why I need it at all, then maybe... I don't need it?

I mean, Gas Town is 100% vibe coded, and its very own author says AI can't be trusted to write reliable code.

Draw your own conclusion.

Switch to Android and you should be safe.

> It is not possible to say which exceptions are possible

So repeating the same mistake that Spring made by using runtime exceptions everywhere.

Now you can never know how exactly a function can fail, which means you are flying completely blind.

I think OP was just making a comment on the asymmetry of the syntax. Brackets [] are usually used to dereference.

Why is this written

    lea eax, [rdi + rsi]

instead of just

    lea eax, rdi + rsi

?

What strange choices. For example, to express the sum from i=1 to n:

    sum_(i=1)^n

Why use the exponent sign to indicate the upper limit? Am I taking crazy pills here?

How about using some symmetry instead, e.g.

    sum(i=1)(n)    "Means: sum from i=1 to n"

I really like IDEA's .http files [1]

Very similar idea as Bruno: everything is configured in text, which I always find myself more productive in that full blown GUI where I need to tab from edit text to edit text to get anything don.

[1] https://www.jetbrains.com/help/idea/http-client-in-product-c...

The reason why Apple didn't go bankrupt is not because Jobs brought NeXTStep, but because Bill Gates gave them money months away from having to shut down.

It kinda did, though.

The Amiga with its revolutionary coprocessors (Denise, Agnus, Paula) was a game changer.

However, id Software taught the world that the important part of the software revolution was not in these coprocessors but in fast 3D code. And the Amiga architecture was simply not ready to face that challenge.

Now to be fair, I don't think DOOM killed the Amiga, but I am reasonably confident Windows 95 did.

Related: https://www.beust.com/weblog/various-ways-to-get-randomness-...

Just Rob Pike expressing to the world how ignorant he is of programming language theory that was discovered after 2000.

> Go's one language innovation is to not require an interface implementation to declare the interface it implements.

Uh? How is that innovation? 100% of mainstream languages that I can think of that predate Go do this.

Can you name one programming language that we should care about which, once you define an interface, FORCES YOU to provide an implementation of said interface?

> But I can definitely sympathize with the Go team

I don't.

The hardest part in implementing generics is when you support inheritance of implementation.

Go doesn't.

Go had the easiest job in implementing generics.

The only reason why they didn't was not technical: it was ideological and purely based in ignorance, and the fact that most Go designers stopped paying attention to the field of PLT in the late 90s.

The first time I saw this trick was with ProDOS on the Apple ][, circa 1983.

ProDOS came up with this new call syntax where the parameters to the API follow the call to it.

For example:

            ldx #$00
            ldy #$10        
            sty params+4
            stx params+5    ; setup number of bytes to read (16)
            jsr $BF00       ; call ProDOS
            .BYTE $CA       ; ProDOS command number = CA (read)
            .WORD params    ; address of parameter table, lo/hi
            bcs error       ; carry set, error
            .
            .
            
     params .BYTE $04       ; number of parameters for a read
            .BYTE $00       ; file reference number, 0, 1, 2 in MacQForth
            .WORD BUFFER    ; pointer to data buffer
            .WORD $0000     ; requested number of bytes to read, fill in
            .WORD $0000     ; number actually read, returned by ProDOS

FYI Swift did this years ago.

You're assuming the Moon is traveling toward that specific system...

It's going in a random direction, and probably in a straight line.

Statistically, even at light speed, they would probably only encounter another system every few millions of years or so.

The problem with Python (and dynamically typed languages in general) is not so much knowing the language, but understanding the code that people write with it.

Since there are no type annotations to help your understanding of the code, you need to keep a lot in your head, as opposed to statically typed languages.

That's fine if you're the only one working on a project but it doesn't work as soon as there are more than one person contributing to the code base.

This is still vastly more believable than the Moon encountering a new planet every episode.

Even if it was traveling at near light speed, it should take thousands of years before they encounter another planet. And if they were traveling that fast, they would barely see these planets for a fraction of a second before continuing on their journey :-)

But well, great scifi show back then.

First example I looked up got it wrong.

It was "coup de grâce".

The video pronounces it "coup de grah", like many other English speaking people, whereas you need to pronounce the final "s" sound: "coup de grass".