Mond_

Cpp2 has been dead for a while afaik, while Carbon is still going.

I don't think Carbon is dead, it just all depends on how easy it actually is to rewrite "all of C++" in Rust. (The jury is still out on this one, but it's not looking good.)

Yeah, sure, but you don't need a dedicated plan mode for that at all. you can just do it in auto mode, and say "let's do some planning first", and Claude will (nowadays) be smart enough to understand that it's not supposed to jump straight into the implementation.

So again: You don't need plan mode, auto mode works just fine, there is no difference in the workflows here.

I agree on both accounts fwiw.

My understanding is that this one was never really "official", and that the guy who released it wasn't following standard procedures. That's not even the official Google github account.

Fair enough, I missed that specific line. The point still stands that I wouldn't expect this to have GDM leadership backing. (If you're planning to use this at all, that matters for how much faith you should have in the product.)

Yes, and one thing to understand about Google is that no AI framework or tool is guaranteed to survive unless it has the explicit backing of Google Deepmind.

"Effort in GCP" is a red flag. (See Gemini CLI, which was shut down in favor of Antigravity CLI.)

The reality with releases like this is that I'm 90% sure most Google bigwigs have never heard of it, and it's misleading to label it as "Google's" in the title.

Yes, it was developed by Google employees, that does not imply it has the full backing of Google, or Deepmind, or GCP. Notably, the website doesn't seem to claim this either.

> Hacker News Guidelines

> Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.

Where did you hear that it got pushed back out? It's going strong as far as I can tell.

Tao is so incredibly ahead of the curve in this regard that you trying to accuse him of not "going with the program" is a bit silly.

He's not an AI Luddite by any means.

absolutely crazy to make this a "paid tier user" feature.

the primary difference between the free and the paid versions should be the amount of inference quota you have access to

This does sound a lot like there's a real risk of C++ imploding, in some form or another. (Arguably, it has been in that state for a while now.)

I personally agree that contracts probably shouldn't be in the standard, but this whole situation looks like a mess.

I don't think this goal was ever realistic, it was just a marketing pitch to get a foot in the door.

I run Linux as my primary operating system and I have never even heard of eBPF! I'd be surprised if most end users have.

> I don't know why this comment's getting down voted.

Because just calling something bad does not add a lot to the conversation. It's not thoughtful, interesting, or good.

Afaik Herb Sutter largely stopped working on Cppfront a few months ago, and was never quite supposed to be a real thing, just a personal playground (or so Sutter claims at this point, anyway).

Afaik Carbon is at this point the only attempt at a successor language that's still going?

Stupid question, can't this trivially be solved by having a movable constructor / builder type that then gets turned into a non-movable type when built?

It's not about having to remember them, it's that you shouldn't waste these short single symbols on operations that are only rarely used.

This stuff (especially the ternary) are a step backwards. There is just no reason to waste | on a bitwise or that gets used at 1% of the frequency of the standard or. In the future you might have a better use for it (pipeline syntax, sum or union types come to mind in other languages).

I dislike basically everything about these syntax extensions.

> Money can't buy happiness, but it can buy less unhappiness

> Money can very much buy happiness. Most of the things that make you unhappy can be remedied with money

Was it too hard to read beyond the first comma?

It's their own blog and they can do whatever they feel like to break up the flow. I think it's quite charming tbh

Sort specifically is kind of a weird example, but C++ is full of awful naming.

std::map (which is not a hash map, which is what most people would expect), std::move (which doesn't move), std::vector (which is not a vector), and std::vector<bool> (which is not even a std::vector).

Yes, with the trade-off of essentially requiring exceptions, which are also banned in some codebases.

Is it really, though, or is it just in comparison to C++?

Tbh I never expected that experiment to go anywhere. I guess that leaves Carbon (and large scale efforts to rewrite C++ in Rust).

May I ask how far you got? It's not a good representation of industrial engineering, for sure, but I do like the actual logistics management and "how do I deal with my technical debt" later in the game. I think most of this only really gets interesting once you use trains everywhere and build everything with bots.

It isn't anymore, though, that's kind of the whole point of the article.

Strategic vision.

The common sentiment is that you didn't really want to do that. You expect higher returns from only having a single base model.

How about just panic? If a wrap happens and you don't expect it, it's almost always a severe bug.

Then, dedicated APIs for wrapping behavior where you expect it to happen.

Not OP, but I've had the same conclusion. It's a bit cheeky to call it a puzzle game, but I don't think it's strictly wrong.

Imo it's better to approach Demon's Souls as an exploration puzzle game with RPG stuff and combat, not as an action RPG (such as Dark Souls 3).

No shade thrown, but I always preferred my game with some amount of story or artistic ambition beyond mere puzzling.

I'd take Void Stranger or probably even Deadly Rooms of Death: The Second Sky over Stephen's Sausage Roll any day, I imagine.

I don't think that's what that word means.