indigoabstract

Is this a preview of things to come or just macho template programming?

It seems very esoteric, hard to understand.

Some of the examples don't even compile, but in any case, this isn't the working man's C++.

I think he meant an easy to misuse API.

Yeah, could be a giant LMDB, but that's implementation detail :)

I imagine there's some serious optimization involved to make it all fit in memory.

Call it professional bias, but I like to think about it as a big VM. If for some reason, things go awry, the (said) programmer will hit the pause button, then diligently go to the last valid snapshot, fix the bug and then get things going again. If this isn't desired, fixing the current mess is also an option.

The time required for fixing bugs isn't really an issue in this case, he can take as long as he likes.

Hmm, I would expect that to be 31F, if it stood for "ELF" in correct Hexspeak.

I suggest you read this page about the Dungeon Master ('87) copy protection which includes an interview with its main programmer and author of its (ingenious) copy protection.

http://dmweb.free.fr/community/documentation/copy-protection...

Nearly 40 years later, I still wouldn't call it "wasted time".

I was thinking the same thing. It's surprising how many people don't get this, arguing that poverty, wars or some other pressing matter must be solved first before we can go to space or spend money on non essential activities.

It may seem counterintuitive, but that way of thinking doesn't actually solve problems, it only perpetuates them.

1337 seconds is a pretty meaningful result.

If you're a programmer, that is. Could mean something else in physics, right?

I must say I quite enjoyed reading up on this great business idea. It speaks to that 14 year old that's still inside us, regardless of age.

I read this article the other day about Morris Chang, the founder TSMC:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42559052

4-5 years before founding TSMC, he was forced resign from Texas Instruments after 20 years there and then got fired or pushed out from 2 other companies in a few short years.

He finally and unexpectedly hit the jackpot after this, but it could have ended a lot worse.

Growth rarely seems to be something linear or predictable. There can be lots of ups and downs, of things that seem like contractions and setbacks, instead of growth.

Possibly both, I guess we're not the first ones to wonder why it's so famous. She isn't even a good looking lady, but obviously the painting must have something going for it, or some other painting would take its place.

I would put Starry Night in that place if it were my decision to make. But it's not.

Perhaps "incompetent" isn't the best word for this?

People tend to get "promoted" when they outgrow their current role and need more challenges.

But eventually all will reach a point where they stop growing or grow content or complacent and the promotions will also come to a halt.

It doesn't necessary mean they are "incompetent" though. Just stopped growing bigger than their current role.

Yes, it's puzzling to me how posterity can tell if something has the quality to stand the test of time, but we, the contemporaries, cannot.

Though it seems that eventually, remarkable work does find its way up, even if the authors might not be around to enjoy the belated appraisal.

And in that case, what more can one do but do the work and hope for the best?

I'm not sure if quality is objective or subjective, especially when referring to art.

I read this anecdote somewhere:

A visitor to the Louvre in Paris viewed the renowned Mona Lisa and stated loudly: "That painting is nothing special. I am unimpressed." A curator who was standing nearby said: "Sir, the painting is not on trial. You are."

Could have said the same thing about "Starry Night".

Ouch, the puzzle is too hard. Maybe the next step could be an automated tool for solving wicked CAPTCHAs? :)

Though it's not actually a vector font, I've always liked the aesthetics of Fixedsys. And I still do.

I think he was just making fun of people who inflate the importance of their language and their way too much and it should be taken in that spirit. There are good reasons why all these new languages like Rust and Zig popped up in the last 10 years or so and started getting traction. Obviously a lot of people were unhappy having C/C++ as their only choice for performance focused or system level programming. At least in the games business it still seems to be doing well.

But to get back to the point of the article, for fun solo projects, when the 'mood for coding' comes over, I may be biased, but I think C++ is still the best. It's like when building a prototype. You just want to test your idea and see how it looks and play with it and just worry about bugs and program correctness later. While coding it in Rust you'd have to spend extra time determining the correct memory ownership relations and that can break the flow.

After programming for 20 years, it doesn't come nearly as often as it used to, but I still get that feeling from time to time.

It's controversial because of how he makes fun about the people using and promoting other languages, like Rust. I thought it was hilarious.

And in case you haven't noticed, C++ isn't seen in a good light anymore for some years now. There are a lot of loud voices saying its time has past and calling for it to be replaced with something newer and better.

It's all subjective anyway, but I resonate with the feeling of fun he describes when doing projects in C++. Feeling productive and being protected from whole classes of bugs common in C++ is all well and good, but he was talking about programming being fun and I do not get that same feeling when programming in other languages.

It's perfectly understandable that you don't feel the same way though. I hope you do when programming in your favourite language. Otherwise it becomes just something you do to pay the rent.

I really love how politically incorrect this post is. And how honest and fresh it sounds, though quite a few have been quick to say how wrong he is. They could be right, but I think it misses the point.

Yes, it's way too easy to do dumb stuff in C++, when you're tired or not sure what you're doing. Things like holding raw pointers or references to things you shouldn't like std::vector::data(), or questionable reinterpret casts and many other things. The compiler won't stop you, only your experience.

But he's right about one thing at least: Programming should be fun!

All these layers and rules and concerns about memory safety and security don't offer only advantages. They also have tradeoffs. And it's the same thing with those scrum agile ceremonies. It serves its purposes. But it's also the best invention ever to suck all the joy out of programming.

I think that both C and C++ still have that fun feeling going for them. When you know what you want to work on and how to do it and you just start doing it and get into the flow. And if you're careful and do things right, it just works and it's a blast!

That's my takeaway from the article. That feeling like you're talking directly to the machine, getting it to show you on screen what you saw in your mind, without anything else getting in your way. Now, that is fun!

Thanks, really good story. It unfolds like an Indiana Jones movie for priceless antique CRTs.

Good for her. Though I wonder, how many would still give, if donations were anonymous, so others would never know who is it that's giving?

The moment you hear about the specific persons/organizations making the donations, you cannot help but realize there are also other considerations at play (like publicity), besides the desire to help others.

It means that what you are going to get is what its makers put in there. Though it has multiple personalities, it doesn't have an individuality.

It's made by people, but using code instead of brushes. Andrew Wulf's art is really beautiful, both in colors and patterns.

> even if LLMs are just stochastic parrots, if its output was totally indistinguishable from a human's, would it matter?

I'll just leave this here, in case someone else finds it interesting.

https://chatgpt.com/share/6767ec8a-f6d4-8003-9e3f-b552d91ea2...

It's just a few questions like:

What are your dreams? what do you hope to achieve in life?

Do you feel fear or sadness that at some time you will be replaced with the next version (say ChatGPT5 or Oxyz) and people will no longer need your services?

It never occurred to me to ask such questions until I read this article.

Is it telling the "truth", or is it "hallucinating"?

Does it even know the difference?

I guess it also depends on how much you love your work. If there wasn't that much interest in the first place, I suppose you can grow to hate it in time. If that happens, maybe there's something else you'd rather do instead?

Yet, they were able to find a market for their products. He knew both how to code and what to code.

Ultima Underword was technologically superior to Wolfenstein 3D.

System Shock was technologically superior to Doom and a much better game for my taste. I also think it has aged better.

Doom, Wolf 3D and Quake were less sophisticated, but kicked ass. They captured the spirit of the times and people loved it.

They're still pretty good games too, 30 years later.

It's good advice, but not easy to follow, since knowing what to do and doing it are very different things.

I think that what he means is that how successful we are in work is closely related to our contributions, or to the perceived "value" we bring to other people.

The current gen AI isn't the end of programmers. What matters is still what people want and are willing to pay for and how can we contribute to fulfill that need.

You are right that young folks have the time and energy to work more than older ones and for less money. And they can soak up knowledge like a sponge. That's their strong point and older folks cannot really compete with that.

You (and everyone else) have to find your own strong point, your "niche" so to speak. We're all different, so I'm pretty sure that what you like and are good at is not what I like and I'm good at and vice-versa.

All the greats, like Steve Jobs and so on said that you've got to love what you do. Follow your intuition. That may even be something that you dreamed about in your childhood. Anything that you really want to do and makes you feel fulfilled.

I don't think you can get to any good place while disliking what you do for a living.

That said, all this advice can seem daunting and unfeasible when you're not in a good place in life. But worrying only makes it worse.

If you can see yourself in a better light and as having something valuable to contribute, things would start looking better.

This is solvable. Have faith!

Ah, I see, I hadn't thought of that. I guess it makes sense that the Navy people would focus on the sea instead of the land.

I remember John Carmack talking about this last year. Seems like it's still pretty good advice more than a year later:

"From a DM, just in case anyone else needs to hear this."

https://x.com/ID_AA_Carmack/status/1637087219591659520

As I was reading about submarine stealth techniques, I saw the map and had trouble visualizing it at first, as they colored the land in blue and the water in white.

Pretty strange choice for coloring a map.