TehPers

Why not?

Are you asking the author or people in general? If the author didn’t answer “why not” for you, then I can.

Yes, I’ve used Claude. Let’s skip that part.

If you don’t know how to write or identify defensive code, you can’t know if the LLM generated defensive code. So in order for a LLM to be trusted to generate defensive code, it needs to do so 100% of the time, or very close to that.

You seem to be under the impression that Claude does so, but you presumably can tell if code is written with sufficient guards and tests. You know to ask the LLM to evaluate and revise the code. Someone without experience will not know to ask that.

Speaking now from my experience, after using Claude for work to write tests, I came out of that project with no additional experience writing tests. I had to do another personal project after that to learn the testing library we used. Had that work project given me sufficient time to actually do the work, I’d have spent some time learning the testing library we used. That was unfortunately not the case.

The tests Claude generated were too rigid. It didn’t test important functionality of the software. It tested exact inputs/outputs using localized output values, meaning changing localizations was potentially enough to break tests. It tested cases that didn’t need to be tested, like whether certain dependency calls were done in a specific order (those calls were done in parallel anyway). It wrote some good tests, but a lot of additional tests that weren’t needed, and skipped some tests that were needed.

As a tool to help someone who already knows what they’re doing, it can be useful. It’s not a good tool for people who don’t know what they’re doing.

Well he’s the only Tesla worth mentioning. Even South America doesn’t care about the other one that supposedly exists, it seems.

Nikola Tesla? Highly influential person, made AC a thing. He passed away 80ish years ago though so not surprised you haven’t heard of him.

Homepage:

A language compiled to Bash.

Also:

A modern, type-safe programming language that catches bugs and errors at compile time.

The only puppet the US could accurately control right now, is a sock pulled onto one of Trumps hands.

Can confirm. Give him a million bucks, hell just say his makeup looks good one day, and you get a free pass to break any single law you want.

Hard to say anyone’s the US’s puppet, though the irony of using a puppet to control a puppet is pretty strong.

Switch 2 will be a better user experience for someone who knows nothing. Steam Deck is great, but you’ll need to find which games work well on it. All Switch 2 games work on the Switch 2 (assuming they aren’t crappy ports).

Apparently angered by the report, Dmitriev complained of a “well-funded, well-organised malicious media machine built to spread fake narratives, smear opponents and keep people confused”.

So it’s confirmed true then. Got it.

In the meantime, we can expect AI to be at the center of more layoff announcements —whether people believe the job cuts are solely the results of AI or not.

If the AI bubble pops, you can bet the layoffs will be the result of AI, though not in the way people usually mean by this. Honestly, as much as I don’t want to see what it does to the world, I’m still curious what would/will happen.

You simply cannot replace people with AI. The statement itself is nonsense. Even so-called “agentic” AI cannot replace an employee in all aspects of work. You would need AGI to approach that.

Like the article mentions, it’s just an excuse to fire people.

Mixins are composition! They don’t describe what a type is (“circle” is a “shape”, etc) but rather what they can do (“circle” can have its area calculated, it can be drawn, it can be serialized, etc). Mixins in Python just so happen to be implemented by adding base classes.

Inheritance itself isn’t really a problem. It usually only matters when you have unnecessarily deep hierarchies, where a change in a base class can change functionality in dozens of classes in an unintentional way. Similarly, it can add complexity once the hierarchy is deep enough, but only really if you throw too much into the base classes.

Python’s ABCs are more of interfaces though, which is why despite Python using base classes to “inherit” them, a lot of that is really composition (or putting a class together from parts) rather than inheriting and overriding implementation details from a parent/grandparent/etc type.

Assuming you’re referring to F&H 1, that came out five years before Steam reviewed this game. It’s possible they simply became more strict over time and never revisited F&H because it never came up.

Also, Steam’s rules (or any other private platform’s rules) are not law. Precedent doesn’t really matter. They can decide arbitrarily when rules apply and don’t apply (so long as they don’t violate anti-competition laws and so on). One would hope they are consistent, but being an organization with likely multiple reviewers, it’s unlikely they are always in sync, especially with decisions separated by years.

A different question to ask is whether the scene you described would have passed review in 2023. I haven’t played F&H, but based on your description, it seems unlikely.

OOP debates usually turn into inheritance vs composition which is weird because every modern used language has objects and most OOP languages lean towards composition these days.

The core OOP concepts are universal and important.

What might benefit you here is a proper GC. There are a few libraries to do this in Rust, though I don’t have any good recommendations since I haven’t needed this myself yet.

That’s $3500 for drives with style.

I’ll stick to my refurbished 12TB HDDs though.

My partner played Needy Streamer Overload and loved it lol. Not sure what that means for you, but I guess any game’s worth the two hour demo that Steam gives you at least.

I miss the days when it was simpler as well. Back before there were botnets with hundreds of thousands of compromised routers across several countries that could send tens of terabytes per second of data to your server for a sustained period of time. Back before there were thousands of bots crawling every IP and domain imaginable for exposed, abusable ports and wp-admin endpoints. Back before people started to compete in how many 9s of uptime they supported (before killing that all with LLMs anyway).

Sadly, we can’t go back to those times. Doing so with a production service would not end well.

The issue is not npm. Npm is a solution to a problem, even if it isn’t perfect.

The issue is we live in a different landscape.

Eclipse was great, having used it in the past, but its features are not exclusive to Eclipse. I can do the same inlining and extracting of code in vscode with code actions. The compile times weren’t seconds for me in the past, but they are for me now. Vite helps that even more (though that’s comparing JS to Java).

This. Games don’t need to be for everyone’s tastes, and often aren’t.

If the story is interesting, then consider watching a playthrough instead.

This is why it’s important that governments can shop around and negotiate as well. What the fuck do you mean it costs $78m for Accenture to redesign a website? I’ll gladly do it by myself for half of that.

I agree in general with the list, but there is some stuff I disagree with still. For example, the very first section: “Work on more than one thing”.

Like a CPU thread, if you’re responsible for multiple streams of work, you can deal with one stream getting blocked by rolling onto another one.

This is written from the perspective of the developer, not the stakeholders. Compared to a CPU, you are a single thread. You cannot work on two things at the same time. What this is referring to is not parallelism, but a form of concurrency. Like a CPU thread, when two tasks are being executed concurrently, one task is always blocked. This means that while you, the developer, are always working, you also are always blocking at least one task, meaning you are also always blocked on at least one task.

Instead of working on two tasks at once, pick up the second task only when the first becomes blocked.

I believe this might be what the author was trying to convey, but the title, some wording in the section, and the bullet point at the end (“Working on at least two things at a time, so when one gets blocked you can switch to the other”) contradict that and give the impression that you should always be working on two or more things at a time.

use as normal a developer stack as possible.

This, I mostly agree with, but I disagree with the wording. You should be using the same tools as the rest of your team when the tool matters. However, using different Git interfaces shouldn’t matter. I’d argue the same holds true for editors as long as the editors all have the features needed for the project.

For application work, some variety in dev environments can help you find bugs sooner even. Using different environments for development lets you test different environments naturally. For services, this is less relevant.

This is a super interesting approach to JS. Conceptually, it’s really cool. In practice, I don’t think I’d do it (at least for any projects I can think of) because explaining it to others would be difficult and representing complex logic as “commands” sounds a bit difficult.

In a weird way, it reminds me of actor frameworks though. The difference is of course the separation of effects.

One thing I wish the author would have done, though, is add some type hints. I know it’s about JS, but even some jsdoc types would have helped. It was a bit hard to know at first what the input types were to these functions.

Weird way to spell “miss”. Must be a miscommunication.

As an aside, I’m not calling anyone an Uber with their nutty pricing these days. Well, unless it’s an emergency I guess. But as someone who doesn’t drink, I’d rather DD than subject someone to those prices, myself included.

Plus, giving someone a ride home might give you a chance to see that you’re the mess, not the other person.