Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | hgs3's commentslogin

> reflects the software engineering philosophies of the 1980s.

It has a microkernel architecture. That's already an improvement over the "modern" monolithic kernels we are stuck with today. Given Big Tech's interest in hardening security and sandboxing you'd think this would get more attention.


True but it's not exactly new. I remember Andrew Tanenbaum and Linus Torvald's heated discussions in the early 90s :) Minix featured a microkernel before linux existed.

> Apple being the largest sponsor of Objective-C would suggest that you get greater vendor lock-in out of it than Swift

Fun fact, you can use Objective-C on non-Apple platforms [1] and with Cocoa APIs courtesy of the GNUstep project [2].

[1] https://github.com/gnustep/libobjc2

[2] https://www.gnustep.org/


Only if you enjoy being stuck in something like Panther and Objective-C 1.x.

Yes, but does anyone today really do that? The only value I see out of Objective-C on its own is as a performant and compromising Smalltalk.

Why is there no C benchmark? The C++ benchmark appears to be "modern C++" which isn't a substitute.

I'm being pedantic, but on modern hardware, the ISA is an abstraction over microarchitecture and microcode. It's no longer a 1-to-1 representation of hardware execution. But, as programmers, it's as low as we can go, so the distinction is academic.

Still one layer below C, and with plenty of features not available on C source code.

Compiler intrinsics do give you C/C++ api access to relevant ISA subsets as platform-specific extensions.

> it's been mostly static

In a well-functioning competitive market, no company should be able to rest on its laurels. The problem is industries have consolidated and trustbusters are nowhere to be found.

Notice when tech is new (the web, smart phones, AI) there's an initial burst of competitive companies? That's because the market hasn't consolidated yet. Ask yourself how many dot-com millionaires would realistically be able to duplicate their success in 2026, given the same product but launching today.

Aside from consolidation, discoverability is a huge problem, especially in the era of AI slop. Building a superior product is easy, getting it noticed and building traction is hard.


I'm flabbergasted why anyone would voluntarily vibe code anything. For me, software engineering is a craft. You're supposed to enjoy building it. You should want to do it yourself.

I absolutely love programming. I enjoy creating software, trying out new languages and systems, creating games during my free time.

And I also might "vibe code" when I need to add another endpoint on a deadline to earn a living. To be fair - I review and test the code so not sure it's really vibe coding.

For me it's not that binary.


Not everything can be built by one person. This is why a lot of software requires entire teams of developers. And someone has to have vision of that completed software and wants it made even if they had to delegate to other people. I hate to think that none of these people enjoy their job.

Do you honestly get satisfaction out of writing code that you've written dozens of times in your career? Does writing yet another REST client endpoint fill you with satisfaction? Software is my passion, but I want to write code where I can add the maximum value. I add more value by using my experience solving new problems that rehashing code I've written before. Using GenAI as a helper tool allows me to quickly write the boilerplate and get to the value-add. I review every line of code written before sending it for PR review. That's not controversial, it's just good engineering.

Sounds like eventually we will end up in a situations where engineers/developers will end up on an AI spectrum:

- No ai engineers - Minimal AI autocomplete engineers - Simple agentic developers - Vibe coders who review code they get - Complete YOLO vibe coders who have no clue how their "apps" work

And that spectrum will also correlate to the skill level in engineering: from people who understand what they are doing and what their code is doing - to people who have lost (or never even had) software engineering skills and who only know how to count lines of code and write .md files.


It's not a craft.

We're modern day factory workers.


> like nearly all other datetime APIs, has 0 support for querying leap-second information

That's probably because you only need leap second accuracy in niche use cases, like astronomy or GPS. In JavaScript specifically, that kind of accuracy isn't needed for 99% of client-side use cases. Most date-time libraries work with POSIX time which assumes 86,400 seconds each day.


Tangentially, if you're interested in Doom mapping, John Romero has some interesting tips [1]

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptHurafdCoQ


> It never occurred to me that this was a possibility

Yes, it's viable. I do it for my companies projects in addition to dual-licensing under the GPL. See "The unit tests and Unicode data generators are not public. Access to them is granted exclusively to commercial licensees." [1].

[1] https://github.com/railgunlabs/unicorn?tab=readme-ov-file#li...


> The default script now is that every side project should either be open-sourced or turned into a SaaS

I think its worse then that. It seems the narrative is everything needs to be enterprise-scale by default. Those who value small languages and tools, experimentation, self-hosting, and the do-it-yourself mindset are the counterculture.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: