The point on investment is apt. Even if they achieve twice as much as they’re able to today (some doubts amongst experts here), when the VC funding dries up we’ve seen what happens. It’s time to pay the piper. The prices rise to Enterprise-plan amounts, and companies start making much more real ROI decisions on these tools past the hype bubble. Will be interesting to see how that angle plays out. I’m no denier nor booster, but in the capitalist society these things inevitably balance out.
The same thing happened with the first internet bubble. It didnt prevent the rise of the internet it just meant some players who, for instance, overinvested in infrastructure ended up taking an L while other players bought up their overbuilt assets for a song and capitalized upon it later.
I still don't understand how, with a properly configured debugger, manually typing print statements is better than clicking a breakpoint at the spot you were going to print. Context overload might be an issue, but just add a 'watch' to the things you care about and focus there.
Two situations immediately come to mind, though the second is admittedly domain specific:
1. If I actually pause execution, the thing I'm trying to debug will time out some network service, at which point trying to step forward is only going to hit sad paths
2. The device I'm debugging doesn't *have* a real debugger. (Common on embedded, really common for video games. Ever triggered a breakpoint in a graphics shader?) Here I might substitute "print" for "display anything at all" but it's the same idea really.
while inspecting some code inside loop, i prefer to put print and see all iterations at once in my screen, instead of countless clicking "continue" in debugger.
This is my experience as well, and for now comes down to a workflow optimization. As I feel the LLM getting off track, I start a brand new session with useful previous context pasted in from my previous session. This seems to help steer it back to a decent solution, but agreed it would be nice if this was more automated based off of user/automated feedback (broken unit test, "this doesn't work", etc.)
I feel like the reason this isn't an obvious big deal yet, is because we don't have in real life the ideal use case: which would be a really complex vehicle ( like a real world mech). Something that needs a bunch of tweakable manufacturer control systems, but also massive customization through customer code. And maybe this will never exist, because capitalism is all about vendor lock in.
We actually have quite a number of real life use cases. For example, in one company it's being in used as the only development environment for 100+ developers. We also use it for making sense of and modernize legacy systems that people do not know what to do with anymore.
I think you're on to something here. Squeak/Pharo were/are in many ways an interesting and sort of obvious base for building things like IDEs, DAWs, CAD systems, other things that are heavy on interactivity, visualizations, and components. I don't know for sure, but it seems like there would be enough escape hatches for interoperability so it's not like you'd be actually be required to do everything in small talk, and certainly there's FFI (https://books.pharo.org/booklet-uffi/ ). Empowering user customization and such is actually a big downside for commercial activities though. The last paragraph here ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smalltalk#Image-based_persiste... ) is directly raising the concern of how things can stay proprietary.
Besides that.. increasingly devs themselves are very commercial and not exactly in it for the love of the game. They are actively hostile towards stuff that isn't pushed on them by business, and not very interested in creative activity that pushes the bounds of the possible. I think you can see some of this in the insistence on "it's just a notebook" comparisons here, but before that.. docker was also "just another VM" to most until it was absolutely too big to ignore. It's more than comparing to what you know, it's almost actively refusing to be curious / interested. So maybe it's burnout from unnecessary churn in tech, or maybe people just resist entertaining the idea that interesting new ideas are even possible until it's pretty directly affecting their ability to be hired. Maybe both.
In Glamorous Toolkit we have extensive infrastructure to interoperate with Rust. In fact, the main app is a Rust app that relies on several other Rust plugins. The Pharo Virtual Machine is used as a library :).
I enjoy your comparison with Docker. Indeed, the comparison to what you know is inevitable and it works quite well for incremental news. It works less well for new. But it's still on us, the authors, to try to find ways to communicate differently to appeal to a larger audience especially as our goal is to educate. I am also of the opinion that the most interesting path is to get someone to create outsized value that cannot be ignored. Our current focus is to find those initial someones :).
>Respondents who are the most highly educated, have the highest number of daily posts on social media, and spend the most time on social media, appear to self censor criticisms of the government on social media more than they self censor praise of the government on social media. Other respondents do not appear to self-censor criticism of the government on social media. However, my findings are severely limited by my small sample size.
I was actually asking for accounts of firsthand experience, not ideological slop.
On the hiring side of this, we receive a _ton_ of resumes that have no experience in the technologies we're hiring for. Each day there are 5-10 automated resume submissions to our job portal for a single position, and we're a fairly small company. Perhaps hiring managers are both being (more) selective and becoming overloaded with the amount of AI/recruiter-sanitized resumes coming in as well.
Yes it absolutely goes both ways. The amount of crap coming in is astonishing (as in, data analyst with 2 years in python applying for senior frontend engineer, or being on the other side of the world with no mention of visa/immigration)
The other side of this challenge is that the "technology" is mostly irrelevant for above-average applicants with solid CS chops.
I apply for lots of jobs featuring technologies I haven't used (beyond toy personal projects or something in college) because I have a long history of picking up new tools and being productive in weeks or months at most - because I understand the underlying semantics of the tool regardless of its presentation, syntax, etc.
Keyword scanners (and humans focused on keywords) are unable to hire me for roles where I haven't used the technology (much) before - and I guess that's fine and well as I am indistinguishable on paper from someone who doesn't know what they're doing.
Just presenting it as another part of the challenge of both finding good people and for good people finding good jobs.
I can't tell if you're being facetious or not, but the fact is that, when Boomers and Gen Xers entered the workforce, formal training was provided for many entry-level professional positions, and even for higher junior-level ones. This was particularly so when the company was using unusual or uncommon technology. GP was complaining that "no one has any experience in our technologies." That speaks to an underlying entitlement, not just to employees' time, but to prospective employees' time. It's part of a broader shift of the cost of doing business onto everyone but the business (labor, customers, vendors, government).
Companies should pay what it costs to get people to give up a significant portion of their lives working towards their business mission, or else get out of the business.
I don’t agree about bodybuilders being stupid, but going to the gym and being a bodybuilder are not one and the same. They just happen to occupy the same spaces.
And in bodybuilding, unless someone is specifically a natty/natural bodybuilding competitor the answer is pretty much “all of them have been on gear at some point in time”. For other gym-goers, the answer is, nobody knows unless they tell you and since steroids are very illegal, people don’t tend to shout it from the rooftops.
Sort of a related question: How many of you actually see your desktop on a daily basis? I feel like even with 3 monitors I have either tiled windows, or full-screen windows taking up the entire desktop. I oftentimes even forget what my wallpaper is.
As someone with ADHD I keep things closed unless I am actively using them. I see my wallpaper quite often, especially on the second monitor (I do use the second monitor for things like development, but only if it doesn’t distract.)
I keep any projects/files I'm working on visible on my desk then tidy up as needed (I also have script to move files to a location based on extension, but it doesn't get executed until I checked anything that might cause problems being moved)
Yeah same. Never see it. It kills me whenever I see people plastering their desktop with icons and stuff. I mean do you keep all your important stuff under a pile of papers on your physical desk?
a recent windows update changed my black background to random pictures (changes on login). now I have to activate windows to be able to change it back, because now I "see" it all the time
