The "LLMs shouldn't be writing code" take is starting to feel like the new "we should all just use No-Code."
We’ve been trying to "build a better layer" for thirty years. From Dreamweaver to Scratch to Bubble, the goal was always the same: hide the syntax so the "logic" can shine. But it turns out, the syntax wasn't the enemy—the abstraction ceiling was.
Pretty sure santa works east-west, starting at the international date line. He stretches Christmas day into 48 hours. This is how he can do so many deliveries in a single date.
In that case, the code is obviously temporarily commented out, but go's formatting will make it so that if you comment it out like that, fmt, and then uncomment it and forget to re-add the parens, you get shot in the foot.
I've hit that far more times than it's uhh... I dunno, I guess removed parenthesis I didn't want? I don't write them if I don't want them.
FWIW, in that scenario, for the reasons you've called out, I would normally dupe the if line and comment the original one for reference. Mind you, none of that would ever get committed, but for a temp local change it's fair game.
go is generally hostile to temporarily commenting out code. The if syntax issue you call out is just one aspect. Another is the inability to have unused variables.
I love RDP! It really is an impressive technology. I work in-office somewhere, and when I'm on campus, RDPing into my desk laptop from a conference room client has native performance, with audio even.
Hurd failed not because of microkernel design, in 1994 multiple companies were shipping systems based on Mach kernel quite succesfully.
According to some people I've met who claimed to witness things (old AI Lab peeps) the failure started with initial project management and when Linux offered alternative GPLed kernel to use, that was enough to bring the effort even more to halt.
Most famously these days, Mac OS (formerly known as Mac OS X, to distinguish it from all of the earlier ones) is built on top of Darwin/XNU, which descends from Mach.
Is the article really right though? I imagine that much more stuff runs some linux on any machine than there are running intel processors. Even if it was true in the past, it likely has shifted in linux favor even more
Intel had profited tens to hundreds of millions of dollars from Minix 3. Minix replaced ThreadX (also used as the Raspberry Pi firmware) running on ARC RISC cores. Intel had to pay for both.
If Intel reinvested 0.01% of what it saved by taking Minix for free, Minix 3 would be a well-funded community project that could be making real progress.
It already runs much of the NetBSD userland. It needs stable working SMP and multithreading to compete with NetBSD itself. (Setting aside the portability.)
But Intel doesn't need that. And it doesn't need to pay. So it doesn't.
People often forget the best way to win a tech debate is to actually do it. Once multiple developers criticized that my small program is slow due to misuse of language features. Then I said: fine, give me a faster implementation. No one replied.
We’ve been trying to "build a better layer" for thirty years. From Dreamweaver to Scratch to Bubble, the goal was always the same: hide the syntax so the "logic" can shine. But it turns out, the syntax wasn't the enemy—the abstraction ceiling was.
reply