I always wanted this for Python but now that machines write code instead of humans I feel like languages like Python will not be needed as much anymore. They're made for humans, not machines. If a machine is going to do the dirty work I want it to produce something lean, fast, and strictly verified.
We got daguerrotypes, and then photographic film, and then digital cameras, along with image editing software, and now AI image generation systems; yet there are still people who go out and apply oil paints to a canvas with natural hair brushes. I'm not willing to lose that.
Pretty much my thoughts the other day... now that Codex does the writing, maybe I can finally switch to Go for the web backend stuff without being annoyed by some of its archaisms and gain significant execution performance, while still having a relatively easy to read language.
You ask a machine to write your code and you still care about being easy to read?
In my experience the people who care the most about code readability tend to be the people most opinionated on having the right abstractions, which are historically not available in Go.
Nah all the `if err != nil` is just so much noise they obscures the real logic. And for the longest time it didn’t have generics to write map/filter/reduce on slices, forcing people to use loops where the intention is less clear.
Ideally, the errors shouldn't be returned as-is, but wrapped with context instead. If that context doesn't matter for you, you can have your editor wrap the if instead, which helps a lot.
I’d argue it’s more an attribute of being a driven, difficult to satisfy, competitive, human.
Which correlates strongly with ‘success’ in any system where there is a clear metric for success, which is certainly true for our current economic system eh? If there was a system they wanted to compete in where the metric was ‘happiness’ measured by some concrete metric, I bet those same people would be as aggressively ‘happy’ with however it was measured too - and just as actually miserable.
That those people are rarely (if ever) happy is a side effect of those attributes, and a core part of what makes them the way they are.
After all, if they were able to be happy with anything less…. They’d have stopped already? And hence have less/a lower ‘score’ on that particular metric? And probably actually be happier.
Notably, I know plenty of people who are very happy with nothing - dirt poor - and plenty of people who are also miserable with nothing too.
The difference is, it’s a lot less competitive being dirt poor eh?
> they're back to the same business they've always had: social media. Which is an OK enough business, but not high growth.
Amazing that Meta is even mentioned in the same breath as Google considering the ocean sized difference in what they do and the services they offer.
I know the reason is market cap. But that's the amazing part. That a company as limp and unimpressive as Meta could have over a trillion dollars in market cap.
Right but Google has loads of market leading services they use to deliver those ads, and Facebook has a crappy dated website and dumb ideas that lose them money which they brand the company on.
That's the baffling part. I would think YouTube alone would crush Facebook in profitability. Then add all the other things Google does and it's not even close.
I'm reminded of the Hastings quote about Netflix's biggest competitor being sleep. As far as the various infinite-scrolling ad-machines are concerned, the primary input is users' time, and whatever the service does or looks like is just window dressing in service to triggering dopamine hits to keep users scrolling.
How? They claimed LLMs somehow enabled them to write more code in the span of 3.5 years (assuming they started with ChatGPT's introduction) than they would be able to write in the span of decades. No studies have shown this. But at least one study did show that LLM devs overestimate how productive these systems make them.
It's strange that I don't accept unverified anecdotes on their face, especially when they contradict the best evidence available? Also
> calling this person a liar
"Liar" implies a deliberate attempt to deceive, but I specifically mentioned the possibility that these tools just make you feel much more productive than you actually are, as at least one study found. But I'm sure a lot of these anecdotes are, in fact, lies from liars (bots/shills). The fact that Anthropic has to resort to stuff like this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47282777
should make everyone suspicious of the extravagant claims being made about Claude.
You're the only one in this thread that mentioned 2x and 10x productivity boosts and studies.
Obviously everyone has their own experiences with LLMs. But I think it's an interesting position to take to tell random people that their reported experience is wrong. Or how you could be so certain that LLMs can't possibly be that useful.
> The main reason is Israel saw an opportunity to take advantage of the idiot US leadership.
"idiot" implies that they did not entirely engineer this situation via Epstein -- which they did, by getting anyone rich and powerful on camera fucking kids
the Russians got some of that too, blackmail material I mean
Your friends struggle with learning programming because they don't care enough about learning it. You're the only one that cares.
Same can be said for any skill.
Threads like this bother me a bit because it makes programmers seem so smug, like they are this gifted class that is able to wizard the machine where mere mortals cannot.
Right and I'm sure if a family at a US army base commissary or movie theater were to get blown up by Iran tonight you'd accuse the US of a war crime and let Iran off the hook, right?
reply