Hey panos! I only had a short look at this for now, and it looks impressive! I'll have to dust off my Dreamcast and get this running.
I looked at gccgo when porting the runtime to n64, but at the time it wasn't updated since go1.18. Can we use Go Generics on the Dreamcast? I see that gccgo is obviously needed to support SH4.
I can provide another POV to that story. We checked in as a family of four, and we're assigned seats in four different rows, with a two and a four year old. Only when entering the plane we had the possibility address this to a human and we were assigned new seats.
So this might be the reason you had to change seats.
they claimed they had to change planes though
i had selected that seat when booking the flight, and there were no humans available to address such issues
I agree in general, but running git bisect on individual PR commits is just doing it wrong. There will always be commits that break stuff temporarily. Run git bisect only on the merge commits instead, which are typically already tested by CI.
> I agree in general, but running git bisect on individual PR commits is just doing it wrong. There will always be commits that break stuff temporarily.
That's unacceptable in my book. Before submitting any patch set for review, the contributor is responsible for ensuring that the series builds (compiles) at every stage -- at every patch boundary. Specifically so that a later git bisect never fail to build any patch across the series.
This requries the contributor to construct the series from the bottom up, as a graph of dependencies, serialized into a patch set (kind of a "topological sort"). It usually means an entirely separate "second pass" during development, where the already working and tested (test-case-covered) code is reorganized (rebased / reconstructed), just for determining the proper patch boundaries, the patch order, and cleaning up the commit messages. The series of commit messages should read a bit like a math textbook -- start with the basics, then build upon them.
Furthermore, the patch set should preferably also pass the test suite at every stage (i.e., not just build at every stage). Existent code / features should never be functionally regressed, even temporarily. It's possible to write code like this; it just takes a lot more work -- in a way you need to see the future, see the end goal at the beginning. That's why it's usually done with a separate, second pass of development.
I don’t know what world you live in, but I’ve never worked in an organization where more than 1% of the developers would go through all that extra work for every PR.
Edit: To add on this, I think there is a lot of software that is written in a throwaway fashion (CRUD apps, shell scripts), where using LLMs might beneficial. But anything where correctness actually matters, why would I describe it in natural language only to then check the implementation?
The much more sensible use of LLMs to me is the other way round: creating ad hoc documentation for code that you can even ask questions. But that's probably not fundable by VCs on the same level.
Yes and no (imho). Whether it's some uber technical language/low level, such as Assembly or Swift, an LLM would have no problem 'learning it'. It could take more or less time, but moving bits around and drawing lines is something that a machine can do faster than a human - once the machine learns. I was coding in MQL4. It would take me a couple of hours to make something that an LLM would type up in 30secs with 5mins spent on description/reqs.
And it may make 1000 mistakes before getting it right, but if these 1000 iterations happen in 1ms it is still more profitable than a human needing 10 iterations. And considering that once you teach a machine (ML) the machine will know - forever, while you need to spend dedicated time for each new human that becomes a dev.
> ..sharp decline of people's mastery of their own language
This is the part that scares me about humanity. Perhaps I read a lot, and perhaps I am a believer that words matter. People seem to be replacing everything, dummy-ing down things, racing to the bottom of intellect.
On the original post.. (I'm too old) - I am also at the I'm too old age-range. I am happy to only deal with LLMs as a user. Google tends to know everything about anyone anyway. So as long as my questions are not giving away my private/secrets (i.e. "how should I wash my 5th nipple?") then "it's ok".
