The article didn't do a good job explaining the 120% attention angle, I kept reading waiting for that and it never really came. I definitely had the impression it was heavily using AI in the writing which I gave up on being against, but it just didn't explain the thesis well.
I guess the idea is AI gives you back time so you could now do the 20% but you still really can't because you have to still think about it even if the code is generated? Not even sure after reading all that text what the idea is
.
It's not really political. Or let me rephrase possibly yt-dl is being political. VUT the concept of 'not adopting a core dependency until it has been widely used in production for 6 months - a year.', is not a political on general. A full rewrite of 1 million loc is essentially a new runtime that has the same ABI as the previous and for many downstream consumers it's not something they are comfortable taking a production dependency on. If for sale of argument BUn was fully rewritten by hand would be the same situation. I personally think this kind of decision is pretty standard, I also personally think the Bun LLM rewrite will be of good quality overall, but I certainly would not bet my product/company on it. I want to be the one making the risky changes on my software not being forced into it by downstream deps.
I don't think it's helpful to call this psychosis. N
Beyond that I don't think it's even irrational.
It is definitely factual that there is a complete paradigm shift in the prioritization of quality in software. It's beyond just AI side effects, and now its own stand alone thing.
There have always been many industries, companies, and products who are low on quality scale but so cheap that it makes good business sense, both for the producer and the consumer.
Definitely many companies are explicitly chosing this business strategy. Definitely also many companies that don't actually realize they are implicitly doing this.
Wether the market will accept the new software quality paradigm or not remains an open question.
Generally agree with this stance case in point: the breakthrough in ai coding was not that AI intelligence increased as much as that a lot of the core process execution moved out of the LLM prompt and into the harness.
This again? In general, Software Engineering is not engineering.
It's not a technical issue, it's a 'software doesn't really kill people so government doesn't intervene in it'. In the case where the software is life and death it's generally developed in ways similar to 'real' engineering
Fundamentally folks built building/structures without engineering, just so consistently caused death and destruction that govt stepped in and started requiring licensed trained folks, approval trails etc. without this real world intervention regular physical 'engineering' the same crap shoot as software engineering.
I don't think the title and the article really communicates it's case well. Did not understand the goal until 90% through the article when they showed the source code of RCL with the loops.
This isn't syntax vs abstraction. This is how much programming language power do you want to enable in your configuration language. This is a big difference and I think we miss the interesting part of that discussion because we dip into this 'abstraction angle.
I upvoted this, because while it was critical it didn't feel meanspirited and it was factually correct.
After fully reading the article I came to understand it really was not referring to anything sqllite specific, was really 'what if you ran postgres as an application on a server', there really is nothing more to be gained from reading the article beyond this, and this is kind of the most basic deployment model for postgres for like the last 40 years.
Ultimately the important thing is that the development team align on the style of programming that they will use at least per project. And the larger the codebase and more developers working on it the more important the consistency in implementing the style guide is.
Imperative programming style has many advantages over functional for some problems. Functional programming style has many advantages over imperative for some problems.
The only clearly 'wrong' approach is codebases where you can look at the code and determine a specific developer on the team wrote feature x because it fundamentally looks completely different from the other sections.
I don't think 'gentrification' is the right word for this. However the comments here do illustrate an underlying 'real' phenomenon what ever you call it.
Just for clarity:
- Non-Japan Asia is new to gaming, and that's okay, it's going to take some time before they find their own voice.
This is not factually true, video games have one of the most popular forms of entertainment in non Japan Asia for 25 years. Nearly a quarter of humanity lives in non-japan asia. There were good non japanese games, bad non japanese games, and more than anything tons of 'mid' non japanese games. They aren't new too it, and they do have their own voices and styles.
What gets talked about as history of video gaming tends to reflect American video gaming history and the unavoidable influence of America's number one vassal state, Japan. Really this is the history of games marketed in North America and that's fine, it just isn't the whole history.
I guess the idea is AI gives you back time so you could now do the 20% but you still really can't because you have to still think about it even if the code is generated? Not even sure after reading all that text what the idea is .