Ad driven internet content is at least 25 years old, so it’s had time to settle into the equilibrium the market will converge to. The current state of things is precisely where the market drove it to, so it seems pretty clear that the “invisible hand” isn’t going to make it better and appears to favor making it worse. This seems like an obvious case where an external force is required to push the market in a direction it doesn’t naturally want to land at.
I regularly use Claude and friends where I ask it to use the web to look at specific GitHub repos or documentation to ask about current versions of things. The “LLMs just get their info from stack overflow” trope from the GPT-3 days is long dead - they’re pretty good at getting info that is very up to date by using tools to access the web. In some cases I just upload bits and pieces from a library along with my question if it’s particularly obscure or something home grown, and they do quite well with that too. Yes, they do get it wrong sometimes - just like stack overflow did too.
Not a big surprise once LLMs came along: stack overflow developed some pretty unpleasant traits over time. Everything from legitimate questions being closed for no good reason (or being labeled a duplicate even though they often weren’t), out of date answers that never get updated as tech changes, to a generally toxic and condescending culture amongst the top answerers. For all their flaws, LLMs are so much better.
Seems the TL;DR is “squished out most of the structural and semantic features of languages to reduce tokens, and trivial computations still work”. Beyond that nothing much to see here.
I do wish when people say happy vs sad with LLMs for code they’d qualify it with what kind of code they’re talking about. I can totally see a web dev being super happy grinding out JS code and someone doing scientific computing being less happy even though they’re using the same tools. Without understanding what people are using it for, what their expectations are with respect to correctness, completeness, and performance, these discussions just turn into the same back and forth of people arguing that the other person is wrong and talking past each other. I think people on this site forget the diverse contexts where people use computers, the different backgrounds we all have, and our different expectations for what we work on.
Not a stupid question at all. There are two reasons verification tends to happen in these specialized languages: the languages we usually use are often not expressive enough to write things like specifications, and a bit too expressive in the sense of letting people write program logic that is insanely difficult to verify (think untyped pointers into a dynamically allocated heap for example). So these verification related languages often are more expressive on the spec side and more restrictive in terms of what kind of code you can write.
ACL2 doesn't get a lot of love from the side of the verification community that focuses on the proof systems that are more academically popular (HOL family, CIC family, etc.). A lot of interesting industrial work has been done with ACL2 and related systems.
Anti-MS sentiment is common in some corners of the tech world. People ignore the fact that the CLI and C# are ECMA standards like JavaScript and C++, and treat them like closed proprietary systems. .NET is a great choice and there are tons of people who happily use it.
I maintain my own library too where I spent a while ripping my CD collection back in the early 2000s (and then again maybe 6 years ago when storage was cheaper to a lossless format). The CDs are all boxed up safely for archival storage, and most of my recent music has been purchased from wherever I can get DRM-free stuff. I fiddled with various self hosted servers but I’ve mostly stuck with iTunes Match since it lets me access it all from my phone, and then I just back up the library from my Mac to my NAS. I just don’t have the time or patience to play sysadmin at home anymore. I use Apple Music streaming for stuff I don’t care about potentially vanishing, but for the stuff that I really love and would be sad to lose, I buy it and put it in the archive. It does happen occasionally that stuff I don’t own that I found on Apple Music disappears, which can be annoying.
I think for most people this is overkill, but for music nerds like me where the collecting and curation is a big part of the enjoyment, maintaining your own library makes sense.
Ideally that is true. I do see the volume-over-quality phenomenon with some early career folks who are trying to expand their CVs. It varies by subfield though. While grant metrics tend to dominate career progression, paper metrics still exist. Plus, it’s super common in those proposals to want to have a bunch of your own papers to cite to argue that you are an expert in the area. That can also drive excess paper production.
Vanilla emacs to start, and then the approach I take to finding interesting packages and config is to read the Emacs Weekly News from Sacha Chua (which often links to articles and videos describing packages and configs). There sometimes are articles or videos linked from there that talk about configuring from a vanilla setup that are likely what you are looking for.
I think people are willing to pay for privacy protecting software. The problem is I don’t think people trust companies who claim that because there are too many instances of that “privacy” coming with a subtle asterisk. Businesses can’t seem to resist eroding trust in the interest of $ (growth! Shareholder value!) or caving to authorities. Plus, it’s rare that companies are transparent enough to earn the trust they claim we should give them.
I do agree with the sentiment: people need to get paid to write software, and people want freedoms to be respected by that software. It seems to be challenging to rectify the two in most cases (yes, there are cases where it works - those are the exception not the norm).
This update is one of the rare cases where I really dislike the new version. I’m usually happy with Apple updates, even ones the commentators dislike. This time I’m sorta agreeing with them: I don’t like the new iOS. Same with the Mac and iPad: other than being glitchy, I just don’t like the changes. It feels like my screen real estate isn’t as efficiently used, UI elements feel jumbled and the transparency makes things harder to read. I’m sure I’ll get used to it over time but I’m not enjoying it so far, even after going into the settings to try to adjust things I don’t care for. Not my favorite update cycle from Apple, and I’m usually one of the overly positive folks on whatever Apple ships.
Sadly, based on the responses I don’t think many people have read the report. Just read how the essay discusses “exfiltration” for example, and then look at the 3 places that shows up in the NIST report. The content of the report and the portrayal by the essay are not the same. Alas, our truncated attention spans these days appears to mean a clickbaity web page will win the eye share over a 70 page technical report.
That does happen: foundations will fund specific research and universities apply and get it. What is often different is that foundations rarely put out open calls outside the areas the foundation is specifically interested in. That is where government funding tends to be better: covers many more areas than foundations tend to be interested in. There’s nothing stopping foundations from doing that, but I haven’t seen it very often other than a couple calls here and there. I’ve been a researcher chasing money for decades: I’d love it if foundations would fill this role, but alas, they don’t so far. Plus, the scale doesn’t match: if you added up all the private funding that is available, it’s tiny compared to the federal science budgets.
No. Just google for NVIDIA and Adacore to see how Ada is quite alive in NVIDIA land. Ada is quite a nice language that more or less anticipated a lot of the current trends in languages that the safe languages like Rust and friends are following. Spark is quite a cool piece of work too. I think the perception of old-ness is the biggest obstacle for Ada.
Yeah, I saw that and was tempted to say the same thing. Ocaml is alive and well, and SML still is in active use. Ocaml has a relatively broad application space, whereas SML is more or less limited to the world of theorem provers and related tools (e.g., PolyML is used to build things like HOL4, and CakeML is a pretty active project in the verified compilers space that targets SML and is built atop HOL4). SML is likely regarded as irrelevant to industrial programmers (especially those in the communities that frequent HN), but it's still alive. F# is still alive and kicking too, and that's more or less an Ocaml variant.
The HPCS benchmarks predated Graph500. They were talked about at SC for a few years in the early 2000s but mostly faded into the background. It’s hard to dig up the numbers for the MTA on RandomAccess, but the Eldorado paper from ‘05 by Feo and friends (https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/1062261.1062268) mentions it and you can see the MTA beating the other popular architectures of the time in one of the tables.
The RandomAccess (or GUPS) benchmark (see: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4100365) was looking at measuring machines on this kind of workload. In high performance computing this was important for graph calculations and was one of the things the Cray (formerly Tera) MTA machine was particularly good at. I suppose this benchmark wouldn’t be very widely known outside HPC circles.
Not all of us fell into that trap! My dissertation was written almost entirely using a default document class and a handful of packages, and only towards the end did I apply the university document style to come into compliance. I had more than enough to do on the subject of the PhD and didn’t have the patience to burn time on typesetting or fiddling with macros.
I’ve found in the decades since then that my most productive co-authors have been the ones who don’t think about typesetting and just use the basics. The ones who obsess over things like tikz or fancy macros for things like source layout and such: they get annoying fast.
I’m guessing this isn’t just to optimize for binary size. If you have the resources to avoid third party dependencies you eliminate the burden of having to build a trust case for the third party supply chain. That is the number one reason we sometimes reimplement things instead of using third party packages where I work: the risk from dependencies along with the effort required to establish that we can trust them is sometimes (not always) greater than just replacing it in house.
I use it as a C++ alternative on Linux. We ported a substantial code base from C++ to Swift last year and it works great. Performance is better in some places, comparable to C++ in others. Productivity is definitely improved over the C++ codebase. We didn’t use rust for this project after evaluating how that migration would impact how it was designed internally, and we decided it wasn’t the right way to go. I think the “swift is only relevant in apple ecosystem” view is inaccurate these days. Swift certainly isn’t the answer to every project, just like rust or any other language isn’t the universal answer to every project. It’s worth considering though if it is appropriate.
Can this be aimed at ollama or some other locally hosted model? It wasn’t clear from the docs since their config examples seem to presume you want to use a third party hosted API.
You’re not wrong. I’ve assumed it’s a side effect of the way the industry deals with career advancement. If you’re an engineer or middle manager, you aren’t going to get a promotion or bonus if you say “we took feature X and made it more stable without introducing any new functionality”. The industry seems to favor adding new features regardless of quality so the teams that do it can stand out and make it look like they’re innovating. This isn’t how it has to be: if companies would recognize that better doesn’t necessarily mean “more stuff” or “change”, then people could get rewarded for improving quality of what already exists.
I'm all for this more open internet without the walled gardens, but skeptical that we'll get there simply by creating open alternatives. Not only is there a massive amount of inertia behind the walled garden networks that exist now, but you need people to build these complex things. Given how focused most engineers are on compensation (e.g., the obsession with FAANG as the pinnacle), I don't see how open things that likely don't have such a gigantic mountain of money behind it can compete for the necessary resources to execute the vision. Compensation will probably always pull the people who build stuff to the walled garden companies and the alternative will have trouble providing a competitive alternative. Plus, it seems inevitable that if some entity DOES start to build an open alternative to the walled gardens, at some point they'll feel the itch to grow, and slowly but surely I expect little tiny walls will begin to subtly sprout. Email is a bit of a bad comparison since the protocols existed BEFORE the big companies we see today, and that sort of meant they all interoperated from the start. Had we not had email in 1990 and different companies had to come up with their own messaging systems, we'd probably not see the clean interoperability we see today.
Reminds me a little of Wolfram Tones (https://tones.wolfram.com/) which is a cellular automaton tune generator. I used to use that for the ringtones on my cell phone around 20 years ago when they made that site.