9rx

Surely it does? Otherwise you cannot trust the interface point with SQLite and you're no further ahead. SQLite being flawless doesn't mean much if you screw things up before getting to it.

They are typically stocked with material and ready to deploy at a moment's notice. When the time comes that you need a weapon, casually walking into Home Depot won't be an option.

Depends on local laws. In Canada, you cannot simply switch to chicken. It is supply managed.

They are one in the same, no? Why would one write code that isn't required?

Are you referring to the aforementioned iteration process where the act of writing code and measuring the results will lead to realizing that not all requirements have been gathered? When you start with bubble sort and then users complain that your program is too slow you will realize that you missed that efficiency as a requirement when you were first determining "what to write", sure, but theoretically the requirement was there all along. I don't think when you discover "what to write" really matters with respect to the discussion. The process was understood in the original comment.

We can recognize that transient state where one hypothetically thought bubble sort was a suitable algorithm for the user's requirements when it actually wasn't. But isn't it still chosen under some misaligned understanding of the user requirements, like seeing bubble sort as being quick to implement and thinking fastest delivery is the requirement in the moment? The choice to use bubble sort is not random. I'm not sure refinement as more information becomes available changes anything.

> You want to know what I think? I think this conversation is crossing into rudeness.

True. I can think of nothing more rude than asking for clarification an in effort to understand someone. My apologies. I will only talk past you henceforth... But seriously, appeal to emotion is a poor device. There is no good faith discussion that can venture into the world of logical fallacies. What were you trying to accomplish here?

Like what? Are you, perhaps, confusing "hard" with "time consuming"? Some things take a long time to express in code (absent AI, at least). It's not hard, though. It's just rote copying down what you have already determined "what needs to be programmed". Getting to the point where it is just rote copying can be difficult, but is decidedly in the "what to program" phase.

Once your requirements are established there isn't any thing left to choose from, other than maybe whether to use a while loop instead of a for loop — stuff that makes absolutely no difference. The structure of your code, the algorithms you choose, etc. are all dictated by the requirements. So what lies in this nebulous in-between state and what makes it so hard? Is it choosing between for and while what you think is hard?

For me, I need to have a solution figured out before writing code. I am not even sure how you could write code before having the problem solved. Your approach would be insightful.

Like, I get it is effectively impossible to gather all user requirements upfront and that you need to build a product to find out what details you overlooked. That means software is an iterative process. But within each iteration, surely you still need to have the solution — to the extent that it satisfies the known requirements — prepared before you can write code? Maybe if you had an infinite number of monkeys you could have them bang out something that accidentally works by throwing down random keywords, but in the real world where it is only you and your code has to meaningful, what you program is simply the expression of what to program.

Writing code is just means of conveyance, no?

Is writing hard? I expect most can agree that determining what to write, especially if you have an objective (e.g. becoming a best-selling novelist), can be extremely hard — but writing itself?

> there are many different ways to write a program to satisfy them.

"What to program" being hard was accepted from the onset and so far we see no disagreement with that.

And the parent rightfully points out that you cannot know exactly what needs to be programmed until after you've done it and have measured the outcome. We literally call the process development; for good reason. Software is built on hunches and necessarily so. There is an assumption that in the future the cost of the work will pay back in spades, but until you arrive in that future, who knows? Hence why businesses focus on metrics that try to observe progress towards finding out rather than tracking immediate economic payoff.

The interesting takeaway from the article, if you haven't give this topic much thought already, is that the changing financial landscape means that businesses are going to be more hesitant to take those risks. Right now there still seems to be enough optimism in AI payoffs to keep things relatively alive, but if that runs out of steam...

I think we can agree that few of them would be economically useful due to not knowing what to program. There is no sign of competency on that front. Certainly, even the best programmer in the world could theoretically be economically useless. Programmers only become economically useful when they can bridge "what to program".

Determining what to program can be hard, but that was already considered earlier.

The only other place where I sometimes see it become hard for some people is where they treat programming as an art and are always going down crazy rabbit holes to chase their artistic vision. Although I would say that isn't so much that programming is hard, but rather art that is trying to push boundaries is hard. That is something that holds regardless of the artistic medium.

But that isn't how it was interpreted. We saw the weakest plausible interpretation + silly criticism transpire instead. However, I trust in good faith that it wasn't intentionally interpreted in the weakest way, but rather that it simply failed to communicate its intent.

Which is where I seek an understanding of where it broke down so that I can be clearer in the future.

Well, that's why there isn't just one summer. We have meteorological summer, astronomical summer, solar summer, etc. Solar summer already covers your intent.

I'm reminded of the comments every time unemployment rates are mentioned. Someone invariably chimes in with something like "the unemployment rate isn't valid because it fails to account for x", somehow not realizing that there isn't just one unemployment rate and that x is accounted for in the applicable rates.

How about Ted Kaczynski (Unabomber)? Attacking the tech elite was his deal.

For the sake of understanding our communication breakdown, what suggests "in this day of age of high-priced beef" is talking about 5-10 years ago?

Because that is when tax and "munition" laws finally caught up. Internet commerce was already well understood before that time. The major online commerce players we think of today had already been in business for years. But an outdated legal system made scaling a challenge.

What's getting in the way of AI? It seems lawmakers have actually been afraid of holding innovation back here like they did with the internet and are allowing AI to do just about anything, even things that would normally be under intense scrutiny (e.g. copyright violations).

Huh? A holstein bull calf is selling for around $3,000 right now. That's... insane.

I remember from what doesn't seem all that long ago when fats didn't even fetch half that much. Beef has gone wild. If that's not valuable, what do you consider valuable?

Go's stdlib is separate from the language. The language spec doesn't specify a standard library at all. It also doesn't have just one stdlib. tinygo's stdlib isn't the same as gc's, for example.

I will note that gc's standard library also isn't written in Go. It is written in a superset with a 'private' language on top that is tied to the gc compiler to support low-level functions that Go doesn't have constructs for. So separating the standard library from the compiler wouldn't really work. No other Go compiler would be able to make sense of it. go1 promise aside, the higher-level packages that are pure Go could be hoisted completely out of the stdlib, granted.

Or fixed? The suspected cause at the time was pneumatic planter dust-off and addressing that was as simple as adding a baffle to direct the dust to the ground, so it was quickly adopted once identified.