I agree that IntelliJ is a monster of a resource hog, but I have yet to find an editor where code navigation is as good. That's basically all I use it for these days, in the days of LLMs, and I still think it's worth it. VSCode, especially for golang, is terrible. I might be holding it wrong, but I've really tried, and it's just not good enough.
Before LLMs, when I still refactored by hand, coworkers who were using vim or vscode used to ask me to do big refactors, because IntelliJ always got it right, whereas with the other editors it was hit-or-miss.
I've been working as a software developer for about ten years, and I've started to get a little annoyed when my manager asks me what I'm gonna work on improving this year. Like what can I say? That I'll try get better at coding? That I'll get better at project management? At some point the marginal utility is just not there anymore. Even if I did get twice as good (whatever that means) at systems design, it's not like there is _that_ much systems design to go around at work that it would actually be noticeable.
What do senior developers say they'll work on improving in their performance reviews?
The caveat here is, as TFA states, is that you need to have "every constraint on the table". And that is almost never the case. Unless you create something in a mature domain, where everything has already been explored, you _won't know_ what the constraints are.
You can spend three months in whiteboard sessions planning out the perfect solution, and then your plan falls apart the second you start implementing, because the real world imposes constraints on you that were practically impossible to know a priori. Not theoretically impossible, mind you. If you'd been smart enough and spent enough time thinking about it, you would have thought of them. But you aren't smart enough, and you don't have the time. Those are some other constraints that the universe puts on you.
I like the gym analogy. It's like how farmers used to be fit because farming involved a lot of manual labor. Then the tractor came and a lot of the physical work became optional and farmers got fat. Now we're all using fork lifts in the mental gym and thinking how strong we are.
AI definitely amplifies this problem, but it's not like it didn't exist before. Old people get scammed the old way all the time too. My mom calls me every once in a while asking about some freebie offer that she gets emailed from sketchy domains claiming to be spotify or something.
Not saying that "there's nothing we can do" or anything, but it does feel like this is one of those instincts that you develop growing up with the internet. Like, my first instinct reading that (and I hope getting that call) would be "what the hell is the lawyer doing at the scene". You have to treat _everything_ coming through your phone as potentially untrusted. I don't have any data on this, but it feels like my friends, and especially younger people, do that automatically.
The primary defence against all phishing is to tell yourself: nothing is ever really that urgent. Nothing is ever that good.
I really liked this game, but it frustrates me a little bit that there only seems to be one way to win. Or at least I've only found one. If I play the hardest AI, I can consistently win, with the right sequence, but it always ends up on the right side with the hares next to each other.
Is it like chess only way more obvious, that the first mover wins, and if so, wouldn't the Romans have figured it out?
Or am I just exploiting a weakness in the AI and a human would make better choices?
I had a couple of courses that had open-book exams, where you could bring _any_ material you wanted. Any books, notes, equipment, really anything you wanted. The exam was still hard, because it focused on defining problems. Knowing what question to ask. This is still the hardest problem, even with LLMs. My guess is that most teachers don't like open-book exams, because they are hard to make. But maybe LLMs could help with this too. There is no putting the genie back in the bottle anymore, and restrictions are only going to be effective for dumb cheaters. You have to create exams which make the smart cheaters do actual work.
I mean... I get it. It's annoying. But the outrage is getting old. LLMs hallucinate. It's an unfixable problem. We're going to have to get used to it.
In all fairness, fake reviews and just people lying on the internet has always been a thing. The fact that gemini once in a while gets something wrong is just not very upsetting anymore IMO.
I get the usefulness of allocators, I just don't see them as useful enough where I'd pick zig over another established systems programming language. Do you have an example?
I really love everything about zig except the language itself. The governance, the culture, all of it seem really cool, but reading https://ziglang.org/learn/why_zig_rust_d_cpp/ I still don't get _why_ I would use it. To an untrained eye, it seems like go, but with manual allocation. Or an imperative-only rust. Like it has some features of all the languages it competes with, but not the ones that would make me reach for them.
What do people use zig for, and why zig and not one of the others?
Before LLMs, when I still refactored by hand, coworkers who were using vim or vscode used to ask me to do big refactors, because IntelliJ always got it right, whereas with the other editors it was hit-or-miss.