can3p

A lot of artists are doing mix and match and they're fine because it's framed as artistic interpretation. Can the author point to examples of LLMs reproducing some original work without being explicitly asked to do so? If not, what's the argument?

I read the source code and like some patterns that I reuse in my later works. Is that plagiarism? If not, what's the difference with LLMs in this sense?

All the usual suspects, error handling, sum types, interfaces.

Just a note, I'm yet to see a problem highlighted in the section about interfaces, in particular that changing a concrete type will make it not fit the interface anymore which will result in troubles. It's often used as a tool to make the changes (e.g. change the interface, observe the compilation failure and fix all the occurrences). They way interfaces are usually defined on site as a minimal possible signature - if your code just needs one method, you define a narrow interface and that's it. That also makes it impossible to predict what kind of interface is needed at producer side.

If the argument is that you can fit a wrong struct into the interface, then again, I'm yet to see a real life manifestation of this problem.

Every library is a liability especially in terms of api. There are many example where the first take on a problem within a std lib was a bad choice and required a major overhaul. Once something is in standard library it’s literally impossible to take it back without breaking the world if you don’t control api consumers

> For many business apps, they will never reach 2 billion unique values per table, so this will be adequate for their entire life. I’ve also recommended always using bigint/int8 in other contexts.

I'm sure every dba has a war story that starts with similar decision in the past

The other reason is the volume of the code being produced combined with the constant product changes. An innocent change like mixing two close but still different concepts can easily poison the whole codebase and take years to undo and may even be nearly impossible to fix if it propagates to external systems outside of direct control

Reads like a straw man. Was "being simple" anywhere in rust lang agenda?

Thanks for the correction!

This and similar post are a bulletproof way to start a flame war.

Last time it was generics that were missing, now everyone is raging about sum times and of course explicit error is a topic of constant concern and why panics and not exceptions?

Go is well designed to build good software quickly. Easy dependency handling, good tooling, vast ecosystem.

Go is well designed to help developers with automation and help them catch mistakes, that's why it's easy to parse and all language design decisions take that into account.

It's also designed to produce a lot of code and that requires the language to be easy to understand and programs easy to tweak and that's what it provides, since you'll have a lot of developers tweaking the code.

We're in the industry of shipping different kinds of products and that imposes different constraints and results in different languages being used. Also, different people care about different stuff and languages form clusters of similar minded people around them, that's a choice too.

One of the things that surprised me in the article was their usage of J2K. They’ve been using it as part of IntelliJ, alright, but why did they have to run it headless? They’ve even mentioned that it was open sourced. And later they’ve said that they were not able to do much improvements because it was on maintenance mode at Jet Brains.

I mean, with the ressources meta has I’m sure they could have rewritten the tool, made a fork or done any other thing to incorporate their changes (they talk about overrides) or transformed the tool into something better fitting their approach. Maybe it has been done, just not clear from the article

Local state is indeed a problem that's exacerbated by swapping logic. Simple example: you have a form + a collapsible block inside or maybe a dynamic set of inputs (imagine you're adding items to a catalog and you want to allow to submit more than one). If you save the form and simply swap the html the block state will be reset. Ofc you could set the toggle state somewhere to pass it along to the backend, but that's a pain already compared to spa approach where you don't even bother with that since no state is reset.

You could you query string as mentioned in the article, but that's not really convenient when done in a custom way for every single case.

Having said that I think that a way to go could be a community effort to settle on the ways to handle different ui patterns and interactions with some bigger project to serve as a testing ground. And that includes backend part too, we can look at what rails does with turbo

My opinion is that htmx (and similar) approach is different enough to potentially require a different set of ui interactions and it usually hurts when one tries to apply react friendly interactions to it.

Just checked it, thanks for pointing to it. I think it's more of a decentralized encrypted messaging platform, and my idea was to have a way constrain the visibility of the conversations to naturally connected groups of people while giving a way to slowly expand the connections rather then fighting censorship

More or less like in real life, where you chat a lot with your friends, but necessarily with some of their friends you don't know that well. In this case you would ask your friends for the introduction and that what I've tried to model.

One other feature I've been thinking about was to make the moderation automatic in a sense of making signups possible only via invitation and putting some weight on it. Basically if you invite somebody who's misbehaving on the platform and they get flagged, you get penalized as well unless you do it first. My theory is that it should make users care about their digital surroundings.