wtetzner

> Why do people keep getting this wrong?

It's kinda funny to say people are getting it "wrong" when strong/weak typing isn't really defined anywhere or universally agreed upon.

In fact, even "dynamic typing" can be considered to be an oxymoron, since types are formally defined to be a static property of a language. A more correct term would be "uni-typed".

I'm not saying that the meanings you're using for static/dynamic and weak/strong are bad, just that chastising someone for getting them "wrong l" doesn't make sense for terms that are not widely agreed upon.

They definitely have other intentions, but it's often the same as people contributing in their free time: they use the software, want to make it better for their purposes, but don't want to be the ones to maintain it.

Of course not? I don't think anyone claimed it was out of charity.

Sure, but why not have a better virtual keyboard in the Apple TV OS?

Sure, I guess, but I've yet to see an LLM generate code that I'd consider either easy to read or particularly well-written, regardless of who was driving the agent.

And even if it does end up being good code, if it's something non-trivial, having a reasonably deep understanding of what it's actually doing is quite hard simply from reviewing the code.

I find using lifetimes to be simpler and easier to follow than reference counting, unless you're in a situation where you actually need a shared lifetime.

Adding Rc/Arc is just another layer of indirection and noise that makes the code hard to read.

Honestly I think having blanket rules in either direction is a bad idea. Sometimes it makes sense to qualify things, sometimes it's clearer if you don't.

> Of course shareholders praise other things like cutting costs and raising revenue.

And I don't think these software releases really have anything to do with that. I would be very surprised if they were meaningfully driving sales.

No they don't.

It's funny how differently people see things. I find reading/reviewing LLM generated code to be much more difficult and tedious that writing it myself.

In my experience LLMs tend to do a very poor job at architecture.

The way things have been going, it seems unlikely we'll see a price drop any time soon.

Neither of those things make it any less ridiculous. What it really amounts to is that you're not really purchasing the hardware.

> If Sony and MSFT decide to go down this route and it's the only way to play blockbuster games, it'll happen whether we like it or not because the market cares far more about playing the latest game than it does maintaining control over its own destiny so to speak.

Maybe, or maybe it'll live a giant gap waiting to be filled in by a new competitor in the console market.