jvillasante

I've used `keyd` in the past and found it to be very fast and good. I have moved to `xremap` since, as an Emacs user being able to do this https://github.com/xremap/xremap/blob/master/example/emacs.y... make everything much much better.

Can something like that be done with `keyd`?

I use Emacs but these days I spend so much time in the terminal that I'm seriously thinking going back to (N)Vim + Tmux combo. Emacs just feels so slow and complex when you are SSHing into multiple servers while running multiple AIs... I should go read that Vim book everybody recommends!

For those souls loosing their skills to the easiest to adopt technology ever created... agentic development works for him because he KNOWS what he is doing in the first place!

I think the website is weird to navigate. "Next" links go to top-level headers instead of the "logical" next. For example, if I'm on "1.1 Fset Tutorial" clicking "Next" takes me to "1.2 Using Fset" instead of "1.1.1 The Major FSet Types".

At a conceptual level, do these data-structures store what in other languages would be pointers and so every access would mean paying for the pointer indirection or do they store objects themselves and they are cache friendly data-structures?

Isn't this going to be stale in a week? Can you just tell Calude Code to generate a cheat sheet of itself?

That article reads like a 5 years old wrote it. In particular the part that says "software-defined vehicles is sweeping the automobile industry" and going further by saying "this is what consumers want and expect".

Yeah, if you're 5 and you want to keep paying subscriptions for a car you already bought! Not to mention software failures, over the air updates, hacking, etc

These tech writers (or bros) need to be replaced by AI or something, total disconnection with reality and what a car is for most people (e.g. it's not a computer and it should be mostly about reliability than anything else).

Exactly my thought! I guess I'll keep Firefox for the foreseeable future...

> We’ve been searching for a memory-safe programming language to replace C++ in Ladybird for a while now.

The article fails to explain why. What problems (besides the obvious) have been found in which "memory-safe languages" can help. Do these problems actually explain the need of adding complexity to a project like this by adding another language?

I guess AI will be involved which, at this early point in the project would make ladybird a lot less interested (at least to me).

Why is it hard in the times where AI itself can do it to add a light mode to those blacks websites!? There are people that just can't read dark mode!

This are all valid points and a hype-free pragmatic take, I've been wondering about the same things even when I'm still in the skeptics side. I think there are other things that should be added since Mitchell's reality won't apply to everyone:

- What about non opensource work that's not on Github?

- Costs! I would think "an agent always running" would add up quickly

- In open source work, how does it amplify others. Are you seeing AI Slop as PRs? Can you tell the difference?

It seems to me that Zig is a language that has been hacked together as opposed to designed carefully. What a mess around such a simple concept!

The only reason I have started to use `eww` in Emacs to "read the web" is because people pushing those amounts of dark on everybody, it has become unbearable!

Yes, but isn't that an implementation detail? Shouldn't they prioritize getting to 1.0 (the language itself) and then work in implementation details like that? I mean, It's a monumental task to write compiler and linker from scratch!

Well, I use C++ for that today and don't see much benefit in switching really. Switching to a memory-safe language is something that I can support and even sell to my team, but switching to just a "simpler" language I'm not sure...

I kind of agree but my main language is actually C++ (I know, don't hate me) and, wherever C is a target I just use C++ :)

What does incremental compilation have to do with writing your own compiler from scratch? Isn't Rust supports incremental compilation as does every language out there?

I've been trying to understand what Zig place is in the world so I can learn more about it. I like the idea of simplicity in programming languages but, other than that and since there's Go already, what is the proposition here?

In particular:

- LLVM is not enough, let's write our own compiler.

- Interfaces are an overhead, use comptime instead or roll your own vtables.

- In a world where "memory unsafe" languages are under attack... yeah, we don't care about that.

I'm not trolling, this are serious questions from afar that I would love to figure out before investing time with Zig.

While other communities are already taking direct steps towards safety, the C++ community is still trying to define what safety means. I think it's funny and sad at the same time!

I didn't read the article (just browse it) but here's the TLDR from the article itself:

``` tl;dr: I don’t want C++ to limit what I can express efficiently. I just want C++ to let me enforce our already-well-known safety rules and best practices by default, and make me opt out explicitly if that’s what I want. Then I can still use fully modern C++… just nicer. ```

As is normal in C++, the defaults are wrong. Developers should "opt in" for unsafe instead of "opt out" of it!

I agree about devcontainers. Now you are pushing everyone in the team to use vscode which is bad on its own. I think docker is fine, but I mostly try to stay away from any project that even mentions vscode (an editor should not be part of any project IMO).

Not The Pragmatic Programmer :(

My essential Firefox fix is Brave these days.