> WARNING: The macOS/x64 port is deprecated and may be removed in a future release.
OK, seems reasonable. Next sentence:
> There will be no guarantee that the port will build, much less function.
This... Is something quite different? This isn't what I think "deprecation" means. The message should say "no longer maintained" if that's what they mean. And it should include the "not guaranteed to build, much less function" part.
I mean, half of these proposals put specific people from specific countries on banknotes. So it's hard to argue that it would be impossible to do the same with buildings.
I don't like having people on banknotes, for the simple reason that one day a French lobby group would decide that Napoleon is a great European who deserves to be on one.
I think the buildings are ugly, and D does its best to obscure them. So that's my winner.
> The compiler bothers me more. When it encounters an error it seems to give up on the rest of the file. This makes the iteration loop quite slow - write code, get an error, fix the error, rebuild. There's very little chance to fix errors in bulk, especially if you're focussed on one module.
Are there languages where this actually works, in actual practice? No compiler I have ever used in anger was reliable enough in its error recovery, no matter how hard it tried. So when working on the command line, I always scroll up to the first error and ignore the following ones. Any work the compiler puts into showing me more than the first error is wasted, from my point of view. And it wastes my time, so I view this as a net negative. Again, not the lofty idea, but the practical implementation in compilers I've used. (IDEs can be better. IntelliJ is sometimes even actually good. Not always.)
The author mentions Rust, is the Rust compiler really that good at reliably guessing the correct way to recover? Even in the face of, say, complex type errors?
These are both "tactics". The article defines tactics as "instructions that help reduce the current goal". Writing a proof consists of starting with the thing to be proved and then writing a sequence of tactics to break the problem up into progressively easier and easier problems, until everything is broken down into things that are trivially true.
"rfl" stands for "reflexivity", the mathy term for "everything is equal to itself". As the article says, "[rfl] deems two things equal if they are equal by computation". That is to say, if the current subproblem is of the form "prove x = y" where both x and y are some sort of expressions that clearly evaluate to the same value, then applying rfl will finish the proof and mark this problem as solved.
"decide" is another tactic. Not sure where you got it from, I don't see it mentioned in this article. But basically it's a more powerful "I don't want to write out all the steps of this, please try to prove it for me" command.
Very well put. I'll just add that there is one more thing one can do to document the important/insightful/interesting parts of a proof, where it makes sense: Write a comment.
Yes. I don't like phrasing this as being prospective for the World Cup as a whole. It's for the knockout stage. (Which the abstract says! But the title doesn't.)
> Applied prospectively to the in-progress 2026 World Cup from the Round of 32, the model identifies Argentina (28.0%) and Spain (21.1%) as the leading championship candidates.
Seems weird to wait to run the "prospective" simulation until the World Cup is already in progress. Although it seems that the model also needs to use "the actual bracket and group-stage performance". So it's not prospective?
> dark late into the morning, but it also makes it unsafe for kids going to school.
This is such bullshit.
What is unsafe for kids is human drivers driving their death machines into kids. The solution is not messing with clocks. The solution is convincing human drivers that they should not drive their death machines into kids.
You are presumably based in some location where "standard time" has year-round daylight around the time school starts. Guess what, many people live in locations closer to the poles where this is not the case. What do you do in a location where winter daylight hours are only between (say) 10:00 and 15:00? Have school start later and later, and have school days be shorter and shorter? Do such locations have the sides of their roads littered with child corpses, or do such locations enforce better driving?
Also, even in locations with longer days but all-day school, it's often dark when kids get out of school, especially after any extracurricular activities. At that point it's dark, and the kids are tired after a long school day, and the drivers are also tired after a long day at work. If anything, that would make them even more dangerous. The fact is, for many locations it's simply impossible to enforce that kids only go to and from school in broad daylight. Any problems arising in the dark (not from the dark!) must be solved in other ways than magically wishing for the sun to shine when it simply doesn't.
Once, during an especially tedious review session, I told my agent something like "comments are not meant to demonstrate how well you understand the system, they are meant to help others understand the system". It felt like that helped.
Just in case the above is not considered constructive enough, how about this: In my experience, with some prompting and iterations, AIs do reasonably well at writing solid, "boring" code. They do really badly at writing useful documentation, and this is a major pain point when reviewing their output. A system that claims to be oriented towards human review must address this somehow. It must talk about how it addresses it, and it must demonstrate that its own documentation is significantly better than unfiltered LLM output.
This system does not demonstrate this. It needs clear guidelines: Start with the big picture. Show an example. Show comments in that example. Don't get bogged down in the details of the internal workings of the compiler. Don't use jargon like "kernel" to mean "lowered intermediate representation". Don't use "carrier" when you mean "file". It's just a file, FFS. But again, don't tell me at all about the fact that there is an intermediate representation; that's not "big picture", and anyone who cares about compiler internals will already have guessed that you have an intermediate representation. Do tell me about the effect system in the first two paragraphs! That seems to be what sets this language apart. Do give me a brief argument why an effect system is a good match for a system where humans don't have to type everything by hand. And so on and so forth.
> a C-emitting native AOT backend that currently compiles the kernel .jqd carrier
This human reviewer gave up at line 4 of the Readme. What is the kernel? What does the carrier carry? Why does it need to be carried? Where does the .jqd come from?
Also, for whatever reason, from the submission here:
> I had AI analyze the ASTs of several mainstream languages plus a few of the conceptually groundbreaking but esoteric ones (listed in the README)
No, they are not listed in the Readme. Why lie to us right off the bat?
I like the general idea, but the human responsible for this seems to demonstrate no interest in actually reviewing their system's output. Which does not bode well.
OK, I see your point. I think there are (at least!) two categories of content creators here: On the one hand, those that consciously want to generate content spam. On the other hand, those that actually want to do "cool technical stuff" that was previously impossible for most people working alone with limited time on their hands (develop your own programming language etc.). As I argue at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48892642, I think there is really a part of the latter group that are simply unable to recognize LLM-speak as bad style. It's how the LLM speaks to them, it doesn't bother them; since the all-knowing LLM does it, it must be fine. I don't know. I don't understand these people, but I believe they exist.
For example, consider this project where I also complained about atrocious writing: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48876506. I think this is really just someone who wanted to "create" something, I don't think this is in the same category as recipe/blog spam. I don't think the person who put this online thinks that this landing page is worse than any other programming language website.
A little detail to your extra detail :-) I agree that there's a general "it'll do", motivated by just pushing something, anything, out there. But I think that's party because they don't know better. The people who generate the articles that reach the HN front page surely interact a lot with their agents. Their agents will certainly talk to them in "AI-shaped", "LLM-marker-bearing" bot-speak, but they apparently don't mind, because they can't tell that this is bad writing. If they did, if this annoyed them as much as it annoys many of us, they would surely adopt some style guidelines for their agents. And those should apply to their blog posts too.
As for the rating system, we already have many people who first check the comments for things like "AI, don't bother". I think that's OK; it could be better by quoting two or three sample sentences so that others could quickly judge how bad it is. I don't think it needs to be more formal than this.
OK, seems reasonable. Next sentence:
> There will be no guarantee that the port will build, much less function.
This... Is something quite different? This isn't what I think "deprecation" means. The message should say "no longer maintained" if that's what they mean. And it should include the "not guaranteed to build, much less function" part.