stakhanov

IMO, PRs were never the right process to use in tightly-collaborating teams such as most companies. PRs got popular because orgs started using GitHub, and GitHub had made that workflow to fit the needs of open source (and modeled it after what open source was already doing in the days when patches got sent around via mailing lists).

I'm old enough to remember using CVS and then subversion in companies. People would commit straight to main (which was then called "trunk"), because making feature branches and merging them was cumbersome. And, on regular intervals, the person responsible for some corner of the codebase would do a show-and-tell presenting it to peers, but without the sharply defined boundaries of what the code looked like before vs. after some recent set of changes. People might remember some things from the previous show and tell or from first hand experience with that code, but that kind of memory is necessarily fuzzy, and diffs weren't an artefact that was typical to look at. So, these reviews didn't block people, and any comments that came from reviews defined a direction that things should go from here on out. If a corner of the codebase was deemed to be in a bad shape, the blame around that was equally fuzzy.

LLMs do this to communicate with their future selves to avoid retracing what turned out to be the garden path.

Another pattern is where they put comments in multiple places in the code to say that those need to be kept in sync in a very particular way ...that sort of thing has always been considered a code smell, but seems to be the post-AI "new normal": it's cheaper for the AI to leave it to its future self to have to make every change in multiple places than it is for its present-day self to do the refactor.

Before AI, writing code that worked was costly and structuring it well, while you were at it, didn't increase your cost all that much. Now, AI has reduced the cost of writing badly-structured but working code, while it hasn't reduced the cost of writing well-structured code all that much. Since no one who decides about this sort of thing has given two craps about structure, ever, bad structure is just what we're left with now.

The day will come when codebases will be completely unintelligible to humans. The best example is when AI actually refers to code in comments with actual line numbers. No human would ever do that or find that useful if another human did it, because it would be next to impossible for a human to keep the line numbers properly updated after edits and they would soon all be wrong and meaningless.

You'd have to go very far back in computing history to get to where we learned not to do that. Was there ever programming with goto's referencing line numbers instead of named labels? If so, this would be that.

It's so friggin' transparent what they're up to: "Hey government: This is a really dangerous technology if it were allowed to get out there without proper policing. Fortunately, we are the stand-up guys who can be trusted as the new AI-police, but it's only going to work if you help us out a little by eradicating the competition on our behalf."

Hey Anthropic: You're a bunch of thieves crying foul because other thieves and thieving from you. Now, go live in the dystopian nightmare you've created and don't expect help from anyone. I, for one, will happily continue using Kimi and DeepSeek, and think of it as a good deed, if it helps with keeping us all from becoming your serfs.

> People who haven't used Perl to its full power have little how idea just how magical a language it was/is.

...why would you prefer to reach for the "no true scotsman ...", rather than read in any one of two other places in this thread that you are dealing with fellow scotsmen here?

I can't debate Raku with you, because I don't know any Raku, because, why should I? Life is short. I do know Perl 5, and the only context where a discussion of Raku even makes sense is as an upgrade path for Perl 5. Upgrade path doesn't mean that a program written in Perl 5 should run with unaltered syntax and semantics in Raku and not panic. Providing an upgrade path for Python 2 was one of the primary purposes of Python 3, and they didn't understand it that way either. Upgrade path simply means: Leverage syntax and semantics and mental models already in programmers' minds and change them where necessary to trade off short term pain for long term gain. (But it's less pain than learning a different language altogether with completely different syntax and semantics and mental models).

I can give you a list of grievances I have with Perl 5. Maybe Raku addresses some of those. Maybe it doesn't. I don't know, but also, it doesn't matter. The late arrival of Raku means decades' worth of people using Python and other languages as an upgrade path for Perl 5 instead, so Raku addressing any of those grievances is now closing the barn doors after the horse has bolted. Any Perl 5 codebases still out there are run by people who are so allergic to the idea of having to touch their code, that Raku isn't an option for those folks either.

Having said all of that: Some of my grievances with Perl 5:

* No separate types of bytestrings versus sequences of unicode codepoints. Wherever there's strings in any non-trivially-sized real-word Perl 5 project, there is utter irreversible and irredeemable mojibake. This includes databases backing Perl applications, where they themselves don't have enforcement, so even if you threw away all of your code and started from scratch and just wanted to keep your data, Perl 5 would still haunt you from its grave. -- Having strings not be mojibake is easy as hell in 2026. Perl 5 makes this easy thing impossible, so I really don't share your idea of "make easy things easy"

* No canonical way to do object-orientation. (cf. blessed objects, Moo in different versions, and different conventions around how to use them) -- This stuff should be easy in 2026. Perl makes this easy thing really hard.

* Regexes suck. Their brevity is a nice circus stunt for a computer science audience, but unless you follow very particular patterns for composing them from ergonomically named constants, etc. etc. (which "in the wild" I rarely see), they are very unergonomic.

* Perl one-liners, and RSA decryption written in the form of a camel, make for nice t-shirts, but the same argument as above applies to them. There is no purpose today (but probably never was) in one-linerism because an LLM will knock out 10 lines of Python just as fast as 1 line of Perl, and reading those 10 lines of Python (which is the part that actually still matters) is more ergonomic than reading the Perl one-liner.

* The Perl 5/CPAN ecosystem has been left to rot and is no longer safe for consumption.

> The goal of programming languages is to execute instructions on the machine.

The goal of a general purpose programming language is to communicate a program from one human to another, and from one human today to the same human tomorrow, while understanding that a program is only written once, but read many times. -- In that goal it is no different from a natural language. -- This goal needs to be optimized for within the constraint that programs must also compile and execute in the way and with the outcomes that a human reading the code would expect.

Your observation about Brainfuck makes my point for me: If the execution was the actual goal, then Brainfuck would be as good a programming language as Rust, Zig, or Nim; but that clearly isn't the case.

3.5 years of using Perl5 for 8 hours a day every day. I'd like to take the other side on more of your bets please ;-)

> Python programmers would [...] bad mouth Perl all over the internet [...]

I am one of those, and I disagree with the moral connotation of that framing.

When you're in the know and give advice to someone who isn't, or when you're the previous generation passing on your lessons learned to the next, then you have two paths. You can either be honest about things that don't/didn't work, so mistakes won't be repeated. Or you can make it seem as if pixie dust covers everything you have expertise in that others don't and everything that your generation did that the next one will never know, so you look good. -- I don't think that the former path is the more morally reprehensible one at all. "Bad mouthing" is the wrong analogy here.

> Perl/Raku haters don't have anything of actual meat in their complaints

For a random complaint of mine (one of many) see [1]. Using Perl as my main programming language for 3.5 years has given me plenty of "meat" to throw around; I just don't want to bore people with it, nor do I want to re-live the trauma.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42460014

Not everything, but languages do serve a purpose tied to how many (and which) people speak them, and that's true for general purpose programming languages in the same way as for human languages. If learning Klingon is someone's "thing" then, well, everyone can judge for themselves whether the predicate "true weirdo" applies or not, but it's descriptive enough.

What if it had taken Nintendo 35 years to release the next GameBoy, and they now came along and said: "Listen up, everybody! We finally did it! It has a 16 bit processor now instead of 8 and 4 bit shades of green instead of 2, but it won't play any of your GameBoy games; you'll have to write new ones." -- If they did that, then being a hobby for a small number of true weirdos is the only way they could hope to fit into 2026. That's what Raku feels like to me.

I'm curious: What software is driving this? Is it a re-skin of the lobste.rs or HN open source software, or is it its own thing?

EDIT: ...just realized that's in the FAQ.

> Is it open source?

> Not yet. Maybe someday.

SuSE/openSuSE is innovating plenty of stuff which other distros find it worth to immitate, e.g. CachyOS and omarchy as Arch-derivatives felt that openSuSE-style btrfs snapshots were pretty cool.

It's a rock-solid distro, and if I had a use for enterprise support, I'd probably look into SLES as a pretty serious contender.

The breadth of what they're doing seems unparalleled, i.e. they have rolling release (Tumbleweed), delayed rolling release (Slowroll) which is pretty unique in and of itself, point release (Leap), and then both Tumbleweed and Leap are available in immutable form as well (MicroOS, and Leap Micro respectively), and all of the aforementioned with a broad choice of desktops or as server-focused minimal environments with an impressively small footprint without making unreasonable tradeoffs. ...if you multiply out all of those choices it gives you, it turns into quite a hairy ball of combinatorics, but they're doing a decent job supporting it all.

As far as graphical tools for system administration go, YaST is one of the most powerful and they are currently investing in properly replacing it, now that its 20-year history makes for an out-of-date appearance. I tried their new Agama installer just today, and was very pleased with the direction they're taking.

...so, not quite sure what you're getting at with your "Back in the day..." I, too, remember the days of going to a brick-and-mortar store to buy Linux as a box set, and it was between RedHat and SuSE. Since then, I think they've lost mindshare because other options became numerous and turned up the loudness, but I think they've been quiety doing a pretty decent job all this time and are still beloved by those who care to pay attention.

Always reminds me of the quote "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers." by T. J. Watson Sr.

The quote is usually delivered as a punchline of sorts, but we're rapidly approaching a world where there truly will be only five computers. If you define a computer as a system capable of truly general purpose computing, and if you count the computers as systems each capable of operating truly independently of the others. The term "general purpose" needs the further qualification, that a great deal of power and political capital will be needed to have any say in what purpose one of these five computers will be put to, and it will then be forced on the other people who are forced to work with that computer.

I agree. I'm not sure about "toy", but something that gives the child zero agency definitely falls hort of the definition of "play".

The E.U. making life difficult for U.S.-based monopolists, and the U.S. making life difficult for E.U.-based monopolists? For a net effect of life being difficult for all monopolists?

Well, that sounds like a wonderful idea!

I am all for it. Through this model, we might actually enjoy effective antitrust enforcement, and escape regulatory capture! Who would have thought that this day would ever come? Once again, it turns out I have been too cynical all my life.

Where it says "jesus", shouldn't it read "jesus [flagged]"?

I wouldn't do a take-home unless they do an interview first, to signal they value my time and are acting in good faith. (HR people don't count).

Then, when they give me the take-home, I would ask how many other people are in the stage with me. If it's 20, with only one candidate getting hired, forget it. My expectation in such situations would be that they won't be able to trim the pipeline as much as they will need/want to by applying purely objective/rational criteria, and I'd end up getting rejected on grounds of "inability to mind-read subjective preferences".

Thanks!

Is the Mac Pro pretty much no longer a thing, going forward? -- Not trying to be a smartass, just asking out of genuine curiosity, because I know next to nothing about the Apple lineup. But the naming ("M2" vs "M5") would seem to suggest it's 3 generations behind the latest?

CachyOS and openSUSE have you covered with btrfs and snapper pre-configured to take snapshots before/after doing potentially damaging things (and, of course, you can make them manually, whenever the thought occurs to you that you're entering the "danger zone"). You can boot into a snapshot directly from the boatloader, then rollback if you need to.

Immutable distros just one-up that by trying to steer the system in a direction where it can work with a readonly rootfs in normal operation, and nudging you to take a snapshot before/after taking the rootfs from readonly to read-write. (openSUSE has you covered there as well, if that's your thing; it's called MicroOS).

Both of those distros use KDE by default, so the value-add of KDE having its own distribution is basically so they can have a "reference implementation" that will always have all the latest and greatest that KDE has to offer, and showcase to the rest of the Linux world, how they envision the integration should be done.

If I were to set up a library computer or a computer for my aging parents, I would choose openSUSE Leap Micro with KDE, as that would put the emphasis on stability instead.

> [...] due to their strong nationalism.

The problem IMO is politics, not nationalism (which only enters into the politics indirectly). European integration is a half-done project. Political forces that want to finish the job get cancelled out by political forces that want to undo the progress we've already made with the net effect of nothing getting done in any direction, maintaining a status-quo that pretty much nobody wants, and nobody (nationalist or otherwise) ever wanted. And that status quo is that doing business in a pan-european way is a bureaucratic hellscape.

A Foolish Consistency is the Hobgoblin of Little Minds

https://peps.python.org/pep-0008/#a-foolish-consistency-is-t...

I wonder how a code formatting tool is going to implement that.

Thanks a lot!

I have a section on my reading list for books that are available as e-books, but not as audiobooks, and that section just keeps growing ad infinitum. I seldom find the time to read, but I often have time for audiobooks, as I listen to them while driving, or doing household chores, etc.

So, when I saw your post, I immediately tried it out, and it works really well for my purposes.

One feature request: It would be awesome if there was a control for the speech rate.

Asking in good faith out of genuine curiosity: I kind of associate ClickHouse with Yandex. What's the present-day relationship and legal setup, and how does it jive with Western sanctions against Russia?

When I read that title, I was expecting the following story: "Academic ghostwriters", thanks to AI, are now completing online degrees by the hundreds per actual human headcount, selling the opportunity to put one's name on the "work" to fraudulently obtain a degree.

What jumps out at me is the paragraph: "Governance and leadership reforms." in the original letter sent by the government to the university.

The other stuff is hard to make sense of, but this part is crystal clear: The authoritarian government is asking the university to restructure itself along more authoritarian lines. ...essentially Trump wants continuity of reporting lines ultimately leading up to him, and going down to the individual faculty member, student, and foreign collaborating partner. That sort of thing could come in handy for all kinds of things in the future, not just the silly demands of the present.

Services are ignored by Trump for precisely the reason you mention. The big question is: What will other countries do, like Germany, who tend to export goods to the U.S. but import services. Right now, those are the countries who would rather prevent this thing from escalating, but if escalation it must be and they run out of ammunition within the scope of tariffs on goods, where will they go next?

Services aren't traditionally part of tariffs; tariffs apply only to physical stuff moving across borders.

That being said: I work in a services-oriented business right now "exporting" services to the U.S. and the leadership of that company is seemingly getting very worried, trying to diversify their customer base out of the U.S.

If, in the cycle of retaliatory action, they run out of ammunition with tariffs on stuff, who knows what other crazy ideas will come to the surface: Tariffs on services do come to mind, maybe restrictions around recognition/enforcement of foreign-owned intellectual property,...

The place where my argument is coming from is that the MxN nature is pretty much inescapable.

> What kind of integration do you mean?

See? The "integration" is something you only notice when it breaks (or when you're working through LFS and BLFS in preparation for your computer science Ph.D.) -- This kind of work is currently being done pretty well, so it rarely breaks, so people think it doesn't even exist. Also notice that a linux distro is what's both on the outside and the inside of most containers. If debian stops doing integration work, no amount of containerization will save us.

So, what kind of breakage might there be? Well, my containerized desktop app isn't working. It crashed and told me to go look for details in the logfile. But the logfile is nowhere to be found. ...oh, of course. The logfile is inside the container. No problem, just "docker exec -ti /bin/bash" to go investigate. Ah, problem found. DBUS is not being shared properly with the host. Funny. Prior to containerization I never even had to know what DBUS was, because it just worked. Now it's causing trouble all the time. Okay, now just edit that config file. Oh, shoot. There's no vi. No problem, just "apt get install vi" inside the container. Oh "apt" is not working. Seems like this container is based on alpine. Now what was the command to install vi on alpine again? ...one day later. Hey, finally got my app to start. Now let's start doing some useful work. Just File|Open that document I need to work on. The document sits on my NAS that's mounted under "/mnt/mynas". Oh, it's not there. Seems like that's not being shared. That would have been too good to be true. Now how do I do that sharing? And how does it work exactly? If I change the IP address of my NAS and I remount it on the host, does the guest pick that up, or do I need to re-start the app? Does the guest just have a weak-reference to the mountpoint on the host? Or does it keep a copy of the old descriptor? ...damn. In 20 years of doing Linux, prior to containerization, I never needed to know any of this. ...that's the magic of "system integration". Distros did that kind of work so the rest of us didn't have to.

In what I wrote above, I wasn't referring to NixOS or Guix. I was thinking of the other ones (SteamOS, Fedora Silverblue, OpenSuSE Aeon, Vanilla OS, etc.) -- In fact, I think it's a bit misleading to lump them together in the same category of "atomic" or "immutable". This term has come to mean way too many different things.