261–270 of 320 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're exaggerating quite a lot. Biggest I've seen the cargo directory after 3 months of active Rust development was ~17GB. You can also limit it with an env var. I have capped mine at 10GB.
I’m at 227GB as I write this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "At Scarf, we started doing all new API work in Python." Start the countdown timer for how long it takes them to discover that was a mistake. Nothing to do with Haskell, but good grief, LLMs do not in any way, shape or form save you from the deep, unfixable problems with Python. At the very least you need all the static checking machinery like Ruff, Pyright, and hefty unit tests that take the place of typechecking…
It is a win win situation, they get to write a new blog post about doing a Python to Rust rewrite.
I write a ton of Python code. Modifying code without static types is difficult and error prone. If a function needs a new argument, all the callers have to pass it and all of their callers recursively. Maybe the calling function is just a function pointer that has been passed around and not searchable. I love Python for small tasks and tasks that are not critical if they fail.
That is not the case if you default a value in the function.
`def foo(x=None)`
Of course then you usually have to deal with it in the body of the function even if you didn't need the arg all the time so your point isn't without merit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know that. Bumping GHC can still be relatively painful. Some language stacks are meaningfully easier on dependencies (not you Python), but can give you some other headaches (yes, you Python, damn you). Every PL in one way or another has some warts and ugly parts. It seems the job of a senior software engineer these days is to make fun of programming languages on HN pointing out their flaws, while simultaneously kee…
whoa buddy, i'm a senior eng but i don't wait on agents. ew! i could probably do my job and get passing (or better) perf reviews using nothing but fundamental-mode and the compiler.
You're conflating "what I do" with "what my job is." A bunch of my friends and colleagues are literally getting paid and forced today to use agents. There's no break from it unless they quit their jobs. I'm not saying I'm eagerly content and happy with this bullshit, alas, it is what it is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have heard "the poor type safety" argument from writers of strongly typed languages for many many years. Having written js and python for a large amount of my carrier I can count on one hand the number of times I've found a bug that was due to a type issue. With LLMs it has been the same pattern. They don't seem to produce issues with types.
There's absolutely no way that's true.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Another approach is career suicide. Both moves are isomorphic in many companies today and will be pretty much all companies in the future.
I don't really understand your comment. Are you saying it's "career suicide" to not use AI slop?
Your company may not be like this now, but the future is where this is all converging. I can tell you at my current company as of now, if you're not using AI it is essentially career suicide for that specific company.
I think these statements are true:
1. An expert using AI is better than an expert without using AI.
2. A mediocre programmer using AI can roughly match an expert that isn't using AI and potentially surpass them in many cases.
3. The companies that aren't using AI are companies that haven't realized that the above 2 things are true.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
whoa buddy, i'm a senior eng but i don't wait on agents. ew! i could probably do my job and get passing (or better) perf reviews using nothing but fundamental-mode and the compiler.
> i don't wait on agents. ew! You're conflating "what I do" with "what my job is." A bunch of my friends and colleagues are literally getting paid and forced today to use agents. There's no break from it unless they quit their jobs. I'm not saying I'm eagerly content and happy with this bullshit, alas, it is what it is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The issue with formal proofs is that we might end up with correct code that does the wrong thing. I mean, something that the market doesn't care about. At the same time a buggy set of PHP scripts does what people care about and captures the market. Think about 20+ years ago and you find a lot of examples.
https://xkcd.com/224/ lol Zuckerberg became rich on php, which grinds my gears almost as much as the genocide thing. In fairness, my peers at $corp used to ship while I was sad-Wojciech "no you can't create tech debt". The universe is cruel to people who care.