sodapopcan

Not my experience. Often the single commit is all the context I need. If it's not, follow the merge to the ticket number to get more context.

> Reading and reviewing clean history is really so much nicer.

You can have both with git and it's not even hard. Unfortunately it seems many people pride themselves in what little they know of git. I'm not being sarcastic, I've read people say this almost word-for-word.

Also replying to echo this. Hate these blanket statements.

Sounds like they are going to consider it a success no matter what.

I don't really have any experience with the JVM other than playing with Clojure. I don't have much to add to the other answers. Two things of note:

- BEAM trades slow CPU in favour of fast IO, so it's not great for number crunching. - While it can be great for CLI utilities, the VM (although very lightweight) does have a noticeable startup time. It's under a second but it's not a good fit for something you would want to run often, ie, if you were building something like git.

As mentioned in other comments, its super power is its concurrency model. I've essentially forgotten what a mutex or semaphore or whatthaveyou is :)

To add to all these other answers, what would you hope to get out of it without BEAM? Just the syntax?

They probably just mean "BEAM language that isn't Erlang."

All BEAM languages always bring something new to the table aside from just syntax (for Gleam it's static type, for Elixir it's macros and, well, mix!) but none of them try and abstract away the core tenants of the BEAM being functional working with modules and processes. So ya, in that sense you could say it's like Elixir.

> has the added benefit of not being X

Just call it Twitter.

Ya that’s easier, lol

I’ve been a Kagi customer for about a year now I think!

Ehn, "I don't have Spotify" is catchy, and probably the most common scenario for many people as Spotify seems to be the general default that is shared. What I don't like about it is that it keeps Spotify's name front and centre. Like I've been making a very concerted effort in the past year to say "internet search" instead of "google it."

Right, and again this is reading too much into it. The simplest thing possible does not mean the best solution. If your solution that worked really well yesterday no longer scales today, it's no longer the correct solution and will require a more complex one.

This is the classic misunderstanding where software engineers can't seem to communicate well with each other.

We can even just look at the title here: Do the simplest thing POSSIBLE.

You can't escape complexity when a problem is complex. You could certainly still complicate it even more than necessary, though. Nowhere in this article is it saying you can avoid complexity altogether, but that many of us tend to over-complicate problems for no good reason.

Usually one would save this type of thing as a build tool task.

These are hardly equivalent. One is someone preferring one deterministic way over another. The other is more akin to arguing that it's better to ask someone to manually complete a task for you instead of caching the instructions on your computer. Now if the LLM does caching then you have more of a point, I don't have enough experience there.

As pertaining to software development, I agree. I've been hearing accounting (online and from coworkers) of using LLMs to do deterministic stuff. And yet, instead of at least prompting once to "write a script to do X," they just keep prompting "do X" over and over again. Seems incredibly wasteful. It feels like there is this thought of "We are not making progress if we aren't getting the LLM to do everything. Having it write a script we can review and tweak is anti-progress." No one has said that outright, but it's a gut feeling (and it wouldn't surprise me if people have said this out loud).

Post was flagged, huh.

I get the sentiment but it is an odd one that we'd consider adding a name to a list of tables (that can be sorted and filtered) that we generally don't look at as much as our code* as more clutter than adding a SQL to our codebase.

* I realize this is not true for everyone

Why did you write your comment in English? Why not Rust or Zig?

I guess that really is a thing, eh? That concept is pretty foreign to me. How on earth are you supposed to do domain modelling if you don't understand the domain?

It's also super weird when people say this and then switch to another editor, then switch to something like vscode, which ignores the fact that using a souped-up local Vim and a minimal remote one is the same situation... you're getting a different experience local and remote.

I'll never understand people not wanting to share their dots. Obviously you have to have a way to not share the private stuff of which there are many simple solutions, but I've learned so much from reading other peoples. To each their own, of course.

How? What? It's not icky.

> Is that the part of programming that you enjoy? Remembering logger vs logging?

If you're proficient in a programming language then you don't need to remember these things, you just do it, much like spoken language.

It's a double whammy for me as I don't want to support Russia or the USA and I largely don't. But I also work in tech and need to get work done so I have to pick my battles, unfortunately.

I'm not super qualified to answer as I haven't gone deep into AI at all. But from my limited observations I'd say yes and no. You generally aren't copy/pasting entire features, just snippets that you yourself have to string together in a sensible way. Of course there are lots of people who still do this and what's why I find most people in this industry infuriating to work with. It's all good when it's boilerplate, and that's actually my primary use of "AI"—it's essentially been a snippets replacement (and is quite good at that).

This is always my thought whenever I hear the "AI let me build a feature in a codebase I didn't know in a language I didn't know" (which is often, there is at one in these comments). Great, but what have you learned? This is fine for small contributions, I guess, but I don't hear a lot of stories of long-term maintenance. Unpopular opinion, though, I know.

You must never have been a Ruby developer. “I notice this library hasn’t been updated in 8 days, is it still being maintained?”

That's their point (I think, lol).

RIP phone readers.