static_void

But at least there are jobs in tech!

Oh wait.

I'm so relieved this is a parody and critique.

I only clicked through out of morbid curiosity: the software architecture version of watching a train wreck.

I'm glad we can agree. I also like communicating with people using a shared understanding of the words being used, i.e. their definitions.

Just in case you're talking about descriptivism vs. prescriptivism.

I'm a descriptivist. I don't believe language should have arbitrary rules, like which kinds of words you're allowed to end a sentence with.

However, to be an honest descriptivist, you must acknowledge that words are used in certain ways more frequently than others. Definitions attempt to capture the canonical usage of a word.

Therefore, if you want to communicate clearly, you should use words the way they are commonly understood to be used.

We should not bend over backwards to use language the way ignorant people do.

And yet the low quality of the front page is an indictment of the site as a whole.

It's just that some internet extremophiles have managed to eke out a pleasant existence.

LLMs are terrible at writing hip-hop because they can only move forward.

Hip-hop is just natural language with extra constraints like rhythm and rhyme. It requires the ability to edit.

Similarly, types and PL syntax have more constraints than English.

Until transformers can move backward and change what they've already autocompleted, the problem you've identified will continue.

Tests are one of the areas where it performs least well. I can ask an LLM to summarize the functionality of code and be happy with the answer, but the tests it writes are the most facile unit tests, just the null hypothesis tests and the like. "Here's a test that the constructor works." Cool.

In Rust, the `todo!()` macro will fill in type holes without needing to be finished.

Surely you can't be against putting a TODO in an unfinished part of the code?

I once went into a LessWrong IRC server.

I posted a question where I referred to something by the wrong name.

Someone said I was confused / wrong, so I corrected myself and restated my question.

For some 10 minutes they just kept dogpiling on the use of the wrong term.

Never a bunch a stupider people have I met than LessWrong people.

Dynamic languages are definitely easier to use for highly dynamic problems.

They are not necessarily easier to use for statically-knowable problems.

Static languages get benefits in correctness and speed.

Key word is dynamic.

Indeed, reasoning in the small and reasoning in the large are different skills. Architecture abstracts over code.

PDX Rust, yes.