NeutralForest

I know but still it was a bit too high level for my taste though I appreciate the effort!

I thought it was generally interesting but it needs to materialize into processes and tools people can use.

Yeah I was looking for the next one!

There are some use cases for very dynamic code, like ORMs; with descriptors you can add attributes + behavior at runtime and it's quite useful. Anyways, breaking metaprogramming and more dynamic features would mean python 4 and we know how 2 -> 3 went. I also don't think it's where the core developers are going. Also also, there are other things I'd change before going after monkey patching like some scoping rules, mutable defaults in function attributes, better async ergonomics, etc.

Tax rates have been going up on alcohol at least, just boil the frog.

The current generation is already consuming much less alcohol! Just keep taxing and it'll be virtually gone.

Full support to the author, I hope they'll be able to keep making things that are interesting and outside the box like Decker and WigglyPaint. I hope they'll find solace in keeping at creative things.

I also wish LLM copies were not crowding out actual artists.

You're kind of building a stack of exceptional cases... Wonder what that is :D

The current meta is to use task groups and bubble up the exception that cancelled the coroutine/task.

> My concern with TDD is that writing tests necessarily implies designing an API upon which those tests operate

It really forces you to do outside-in testing; I usually describe the kind of API I want when chatting with the agents. For example, the CLI options, the routes that might be useful for an API, etc.

> I look at the code and find a rats nest / ball of mud that will cost 10x more tokens to enhance should I ever need to add a feature.

Agreed, I don't know if there are good forcing functions to avoid complexity. The providers have a huge incentive to have you waste your tokens (for example when it re-outputs the complete file when you ask for a tiny change).

Aside from the debugging & testing I already mentioned, going only through guix is a tough sell considering the very tiny amount of people that use it. It's also incredibly slow and doesn't have many packages available. Even for Emacs, it has this weird way of going around Emacs-installed packages (GNU or MELPA channels). Just like Guile docs, it also doesn't tell you of a good way to do things, it only says "here is what exists" with too little guidance imo. It means people have to figure out how to setup things properly on top of all the rest. It makes for a terrible onboarding.

A different scheme that has great debugging and testing and also better docs.

It's such an amazing project, I wish it used something other than Guile but you can't have everything.

They also have a scheme to webassembly transpiler called Hoot. They do crazy interesting work!

I know some research languages are playing around with linear types, I wonder if we'll see it show up in some language or another.

I'm working with Python and I'm sympathetic to the problem so I'd be curious if you have examples of what Python issues are fixed with OCaml.

I don't think it's been integrated in any mainstream language though.

Yeah ofc but I also like to walk around, I might just camp in a room next year.

Indeed! It's the 3-4x times I'm going to FOSDEM so I'm mainly looking to connect with people doing cool stuff tbh, otherwise I can just watch stuff online for sure.

It was fun but indeed, I spent a lot of time waiting in line for talks and in some rooms I couldn't even enter at all.

Yes indeed, I updated to the right terminology.

fossil is really cool for the simple fact that you get your issues, tickets and wiki all stored in an SQLite DB. Feels neat and I wish I had more occasions to use it.

Yeah it's from 100r https://100r.co/site/projects.html!

I've watched a couple of her stuff, it's really inspiring and feels very cosy, like a slice of Internet that lives on its own and creates without being too bothered about the Algorithm™.

I think we already have the tools but no the communication between those? Instead of having actions taken and failures as commit messages, you should have wide-events like logs with all the context, failures, tools used, steps taken... Those logs could be used as checkpoints to go back as well and you could refer back to the specific action ID you walked back to when encountering an error.

In turn, this could all be plain-text and be made accessible, through version control in a repo or in a central logging platform.

Well, this was horrifying, I can't believe people do this to their kids.

That's a really good point actually. If you're self hosting, you're already eating some cost by having people, probably in-house, doing the work but the price difference must be quite large and they should use it to support the project.

The Agile Manifesto says "People over process", this can be interpreted in many ways. But ideally you follow the 80/20 rule and have clear cut processes for the most frequent cases and/or liability/law/SLA stuff you can't do without. But you should have fast escape hatches as well imo where a good engineer having admin access on a platform or deploying a hot-fix is also possible.

It's an interesting article because tech articles rarely revisit the past for what kind of decisions were made and why. Thanks! Also always cool to see a Wingo article because I get exposed to a field I know very little about (how garbage collection works).

Can you explain what reproducible mean in this context? Does that mean that you can recompile everything from "scratch" or does it have a deeper meaning?