jdw64

Sometimes I think about that. In the LLM era, what is the meaning of my existence? Compared to the past, I’ve become able to do so many things, but there isn’t really anything I want to make. I don’t know where to place my identity.

Sometimes when I go in to get advice, I always realize that my situation is different from everyone else’s. It’s a good piece of writing, but it doesn’t fit me—though I don’t know how it is for other people.

Rather than taking incompetence for granted, it’s because—as the article also says—motivations differ, and it’s difficult to judge factors like warranty handling or updates. And fundamentally, “reliability” is broad. That’s even more the case for combined hardware-software products. Ultimately, Reddit is basically where people with complaints go, and reviewers themselves have bias too, but consumer complaints also largely come from people whose products broke, so it’s difficult to judge.

But ultimately, for reviewers, what matters is that they “make a living through reviews,” so they have to say things that fit the fanboy tier they’re targeting.

The problem is that fanboys are generally people who buy more devices to begin with, so they also judge reliability based on the existing product lineup, and reviewers are largely the same. As a result, they can’t help but judge mainly by new features.

To be precise, “reliability” requires predicting the future, and that’s not easy. How would you know if your computer might break tomorrow? There are serious hinge issues with the iPhone Duo right now—how would people buying it have predicted that?

Prediction is basically break-even even when you’re right, and easy to criticize when you’re wrong, so it’s a hard attribute for reviewers to review.

Because reviewers don’t use things for long, while owners usually do. So reviewers generally tend to fixate on new features by default.

When will GPU servers become affordable

In the AI agent era, we might end up introducing “agent-month” instead of “man-month.” The more agents you add, the longer the work takes.

I don't agree, because I just like websites that are full of moving animations... For websites that provide information, I agree, but honestly I think you have to give what matches the target audience of the website. I've always wanted to have a moving book like the magic books in Harry Potter. So I prefer homepages with as much motion as possible.

Some people see a website as a medium for reading, like this person does, but to me a website is a medium for experiencing. I find websites where the elements interact with each other fun. I like fun websites. Of course, you could strip out the animations and just show a print-style document instead, but in the end, having a particular philosophy comes from freedom. A website doesn't have to be quiet and efficient. I'd actually rather websites be fun. There are plenty of media for reading—PDFs, for one.

I like C++11 too. (My introductory book was on C++11 as well—yes, it’s that book about modern C++11.) But some projects require C++14, and other times I have to use C++98.

I’m a “traveling programmer” in Korea. But when I go out to a work site because they say I have to work on C++, as you know, there are so many versions that it’s painful.

Going from C++11 to 14 and so on... it’s hard to keep up with those changes. And I’m reluctant to use C++—not because C++ is a bad language, but basically because it’s been used so widely, the places I work have a lot of legacy C++ code, and since each version is different, it’s hard to adapt. I know it’s not a feature everyone uses, and I know you have to define your domain according to your work and limit yourself to a subset, but C++ can do too many things, and even within that there are many overlapping ways, so it’s more confusing. When features are added, you do feel pressure to know them, right? In my head I know “C++ should be limited depending on the domain!” but the problem is that using this language means you have to know it—and even in the same domain, C++ has many different ways of doing the same thing, so it’s freeing but painful for maintenance, I think.

To be honest, people overvalue human writing too much. Even in academic research, there were quite a lot of cases where the writing was strange. I actually think AI writing is more readable, to that extent. People sometimes compare AI writing with the very best of human writing, but considering that AI writing is above average, I think it’s readable enough.

>This is the advice I keep giving now. Someone says, “My coding agent’s doing something weird. Claude’s been nerfed.” And I ask, “How big is your context?”

That’s really true, but on the other hand, if there’s too little information, it also ends up working in strange ways. Most AGENT code anti-patterns work well at a medium amount of context, but when there’s too much or too little information, they don’t behave properly.

Reading this, I thought back to what made me want to become a programmer, and for me it was games too. Why did it look so cool when I was young? I don’t remember well what game it was. I wasn’t the Doom generation, and it wasn’t Pokémon either. I think it was a game called Hegemonia-region of iron. It was a cool spaceship game set in space.

But I feel sorry that Xbox gets so much criticism. Xbox itself may have weak game sales because of Windows integration and Game Pass, but separate from that, the first-party games got poor reviews. Microsoft’s wrong strategy (sales shrinking because of Game Pass) is part of it, but Microsoft also failed at quality control for its first-party titles.(like redfall,starfiled etc...)

Thank you.

Why was it named Goose?

hmmm.that’s exactly how I felt. The language itself has to be written briefly, and multiple pieces of information are compressed into the text

What are some well known programs made with Roc? And I'm curious about the difficulty level of its syntax

Your work is wonderful, too.

I wish there had been specific model names.

It seems people think alike. Something that inspired me in the past also had a similar implementation.

[1]https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/publication/motion-...

I always have a lot of respect for people who are really good at procedural generation

I also looked into the history of software[1] thought a while ago, and the fact is that, setting aside the determinism of compilers, ultimately no matter what tool comes out, programmers will keep arguing about how software should be built

Looking at history, I think LLMs will settle down too. Because, in fact, if you look at the history of software thought, there were actually many people who would have welcomed LLMs.

[1]https://www.makonea.com/en-US/blog/people-who-build-things-t...

What I've been feeling lately is that security vulnerabilities will inevitably keep being discovered, and I worry whether humans can ever patch all of them.

It would be nice to have an example of what the code looks like.

While I agree with what you said, I was reminded of Camus's Sisyphus. Bob was pushing the boulder. It's hard to infer whether he knew if the boulder would ever reach the top, but even so, the process was there—and because it was there, I think his friends were there too.

In my own circumstances, I'm actually holding onto programming by force. For most people, going down a different path would have paid better—I'm not a Silicon Valley person, after all. My environment isn't particularly favorable either. But even so, I love this life. Life is, in a way, a trial, and in a way, suffering. In Eastern thought, life is suffering.

If the whole of life is steeped in suffering anyway, then perhaps it's better to choose what you want to do. This is ultimately a difference in ways of thinking, and I suppose you'd agree there's no right answer in what I think either.

Having a dream that's hard to achieve can be cruel (though Bob might not have thought so), but without that cruelty, you would never have dreamed that dream in the first place. A dream is cruel not because it's hard to achieve, but because it makes you unable to give it up even when it isn't achieved. And for those who can't give it up, perhaps the very process of pushing that boulder is already life. In other words, the dream itself may have already become life.

Did you know? Even stainless steel RUSTs in sea wind.

Reading this piece, I feel a longing for a friend, but it also makes me think about what true talent really is. In the piece, he mourns his friend, but says that the friend's real talent was being an influencer rather than cooking. Reading some of the stories, it's sad, but sometimes I think that the talent a person has and the talent a person wants to have are different.

But I don't know much about the person named Bob, and yet Bob as he appears in this piece still seems cool to me. We like something because we're good at it, but sometimes we keep living because there's something we absolutely want to try even if we're not good at it. To me, programming seems to be that kind of thing.

These days the trend seems to be rewriting everything in Rust.

I think the reason DeepSeek does this is partly to neutralize competitors' technology, but ultimately the core reason might be that data is what matters.

Actually, most of the stuff discussed in this thread are all ideas that those old-school software scientists already talked about long ago. Go look up the papers Bélády wrote back in the day.