When it's down to brass tacks, the most common GitHub action, actions/checkout, is not taking contributions due to "focus [...] on strategic areas" [0] despite having years-old issues - here's one[1] that soon celebrates its sixth birthday, despite having an available PR!
Am I the only one underwhelmed by Claude Code (which most comments here claim is better than Codex)?
Anecdotal experience: asked it to change instances of a C++ class Foo to a compatible one Bar, it did that but failed to add the required include where it made the change.
Yes, I'm sure that with enough prompting/hand-holding it could do this fine. Is it too much to expect basics like this out of the box, though? If so, then I, for one, still can't relate to the current level of enthusiasm.
Sound Radix | Senior C++ Algorithm Developer | 80%- to Full-Time | Onsite/Hybrid/Remote, Tel Aviv, Israel
We are looking for a top C++ algorithm developer to join us in creating cutting-edge tools for audio professionals.
What we offer:
- Research and develop groundbreaking, world-class audio algorithms and software
- Join and make an impact in a small, expert team of developers
- Meaningful work: help the top artists, music producers and sound professionals in the world create music and audio. Our customers comprise the teams behind Coldplay, Rihanna, Ted Lasso, Dune, and many more
- Accommodation for a 4 days work week
- Flexible onsite/remote hours (fully remote is possible, onsite/hybrid preferred)
- Competitive compensation
Requirements:
- At least 8 years experience programming
- At least 5 years experience programming in C++ or other low-level language
- At least 3 years experience in R&D of algorithms (DSP is an advantage)
- Experience with JUCE is an advantage
- Experience with NumPy/PyTorch is an advantage
Soft requirements:
- Curiosity and creativity
- DRY and maintainable programming style
- High capacity for self-management and working independently
- Commitment to providing a great user experience to professionals
- Passion for music and/or audio
That's taking it to extreme, though. It's possible that a large number of medium companies, for instance, would have the same open source yield as the megacorps who just bought them out (in our reality). Especially if it were easier for them to attract more talented engineers, which would be the case if the big companies had less of a grip on the existing market (e.g. if Meta were forced to split up, as regulators push for)
By "techwashing" I mean using some of the money a company makes in its main business (which in the case of Meta and some other corporates has a bad impact on society) to make
a positive technical contribution to the public
, thus helping existing and prospective employees work there with less of a guilty conscience.
Similar, to e.g. a pharmaceutical company raising the price of a medicine excessively, but then donating some of the money to build a hospital.
It's just that in the case of tech companies, the reputation washing is done via technical contributions.
> corporate funding of all the open-source projects that wouldn't exist without the megacorps
This is a fallacy: It's possible comparable open source contributions could have been made without the graces of the corporates.
For example: The giants tend to buy out their competition early, so how could it mature enough to be able to contribute comparably, or possibly better, to open source?
IMHO the open source contributions of these companies are a form of tech-washing, regardless of the honest and best intentions of their employees.
[0] https://github.com/actions/checkout#note
[1] https://github.com/actions/checkout/issues/270#issue-6289677...