Every executive wants to inject LLMs downstream from their own job. As you get away from execution and toward management the incentive to innovate gets less and less as management at the same level.
There’s no claim being made that your rewrite cannot be better.
He has provided benchmark results which provide a dimension amongst which to measure your rewrite. If you can do better by all means post your rewrite.
Finally, these kind of projects can eventually over time become projects that are actively used. Postgres is not some entity that existed before the universe was created; it was also created by someone and then eventually adoption picked up over time.
I find working with Go a lot like working with Lego. I agree it lacks some nice primitives (Result / Option types as you mentioned) and nil pointers is a flaw, but overall sheer plug and play nature of the language makes it highly productive. There is simply a lot less compiler gymnastics between what I want to code and how to get there. Combined with LLMs to do sanity checks it’s pretty nice to work with.
Fully agree with this. We use Rust in an enterprise setting for building web app backends and the experience is painful. A lot of crates just seem like someones side project. Too many ways to do things leads to bike shedding in PRs. Compile times are atrocious and can take like 30 mins to build.
Honestly using Go would have got us to the same point much quicker, with code that is much easier to review.
I think at this point there is no convincing people. Clearly there is value in these tools and it generates code when steered properly. Perhaps your struggles are down to a skill issue.
Lack of static types is one of the main reasons. Trying to decipher a complex ruby on rails codebase is unnecessarily difficult compared typescript. The tooling is also shit unless you use Ruby Mine.
An absolute shame given how good the functionality is baked into RoR.
But she wasn’t oppressed. She made a choice freely and was able to decide what would allow her to pursue a career and get ahead and actually end up becoming the de facto leader of the EU.
The OP is suggesting women are becoming highly educated in technically difficult fields due to oppression. It makes literally no sense. Either they are oppressed and cannot get ahead, or maybe they are able to freely pursue education contradicting the original assertion.
It absolutely does assume that. There is an implicit assumption in their argument that women are doing something they don’t want to due to “oppression”.
The percent of women being married is irrelevant. Women can be oppressed even if they are not married due to societal expectations. If a single woman is expected not to pursue education and simply become a housewife, then it’s irrelevant whether she is married or not. She is oppressed. However, that is literally a contradiction because STEM education shows high representation of women in Iran.
Honestly there are a lot of people here asserting what they think are facts who don’t have the slightest idea how the world works outside their own city, let alone country. I would encourage some critical thinking when it comes to stuff like this.
Except what you are saying doesn’t really make sense and is implicitly sexist. You are assuming women in those countries don’t enjoy studying these subjects.
Also, to pursue a hard STEM degree or phd would detract from being a housewife, so no “oppressive” husband would allow that in the first place. Ergo the women pursuing these paths are not oppressed in the first place.