The line separating investment and speculation, which is never bright and clear, becomes blurred still further when most market participants have recently enjoyed triumphs. Nothing sedates rationality like large doses of effortless money. After a heady experience of that kind, normally sensible people drift into behavior akin to that of Cinderella at the ball. They know that overstaying the festivities — that is, continuing to speculate in companies that have gigantic valuations relative to the cash they are likely to generate in the future — will eventually bring on pumpkins and mice. But they nevertheless hate to miss a single minute of what is one helluva party. Therefore, the giddy participants all plan to leave just seconds before midnight. There’s a problem, though: They are dancing in a room in which the clocks have no hands.
If you sacrifice memory safety for correctness, that just means it's not correct. If safety is crucial, it must be safe under all inputs, and if there are data races.
It's a bit like saying, "Yeah, our system is safe, but if there are two threads racing or use after free somewhere, then all bets are off."
you do not sacrifice memory safety. you sacrifice a compiler ensuring that code is memory safe by it enforcing one quite opinionated approach to it: RAII and lifetime analysis.
you seem to think there is one path to memory safety. there is not. unsurprisingly, some programmers may need different tools when working with a different set of requirements.
Honest, straight, genuine, actual, real are all words that paper over a weak claim to me. Im thinking about a hook that injects a subagent fact checking in an "are you sure" style here because it's so bad.
Also the false not X it's Y is used in a similar way for faux distinctions like a sov cit claiming "it's not driving, it's traveling in a car"
Yeah, I think in this case, pointing out what’s obviously llm is genuinely useful since it will lead to more diversity in websites and a better tool. I mean I don’t usually care if a website is LLM generated as long as the copy is human written
I have no idea why I am responding to someone who flippantly uses a phrase like "dilittante mindset", but here we go
there is definitely a tendency for noobs and amateurs in any hobby or industry to obsess over expensive gear and things that don't matter (I love the term "buyhard" for it). you're out of your mind if you think the professionals in literally any industry do not discuss the specific technical tradeoffs of tools they are using among themselves.
When art critics get together they talk about Form and Structure and Meaning. When artists get together they talk about where you can buy cheap turpentine.
Miyazaki once commented in an interview that the most important selection criteria for him when he chose his watercolours and brushes, was that they were available in his local supermarket and lasted a long time.
If I am remembering correctly, there was a moment where Garry was seriously considering using Squirrel instead of Lua. I think he experimented with JavaScript too.
I’m not sure it’s still the case but he modified Lua to be zero indexed and some other tweaks because they annoyed him so much, so it’s possible if you learned GMod Lua you learned Garry’s Lua.
Of course his heart has been with C# for many years now.
Don't engage with this guy, he shows up in every one of these threads to pattern match back to his heyday without considering any of the nuance of what is actually different this time.
It’s hard to see this article as being written in good faith. We’re at the point that we are responding to low quality LLM outputs with low quality LLM retorts and voting them both to the front page because of feelings.
I'm at the point now where I simply stop reading the article once it has too many red flags, something that is happening increasingly often.
I don't enjoy reading AI slop but it feels worse when users of AI tools have chosen not to disclose the authors of these articles as Claude/ChatGPT/etc. Rather than being honest upfront, they choose to hide this fact.
I added some sentences at the top, so it wont waste people's time:
Some parts of this article were refined with help from LLMs to improve clarity and technical accuracy. These are just personal notes, but I would really appreciate feedback: feel free to share your thoughts, open an issue, or send a pull request!
If you prefer to read only fully human-written articles, feel free to skip this one.
> Some parts of this article were refined with help from LLMs to improve clarity and technical accuracy
Perhaps you should stick to writing about things you can write with clarity and and accuracy yourself instead of relying on an LLM to do it for you. Alternatively, properly cite and highlight what portions you used AI on/for from the outset as failure to do so reads at best as lazy slop and more often as intentional duplicity
As a fan and user of Zig I found the original post embarrassing, but chalked it up to the enthusiasm of a new user discovering the joy of something that clicked for them
Taking offense to that enthusiasm and generating this weirdly defensive and uninformed take is something else, though
I stopped using Rust because of this. I spent more time learning and cursing at other people’s abstractions versus thinking about what the computer is doing.
> the ones who’d use Zig if it weren’t allergic to syntactic sugar
You’re very close to understanding why some people prefer Zig. There is a correlation between language design and how things are built with it.
reply