Pannoniae

6 ms·

61.
by Pannoniae 2mo ago
Who said a standard library can't make breaking changes? That used to be a norm some time ago. There are upsides, your program is smaller, better security because a random kid can't pwn your deps, quality and interoperability. W
62.
by Pannoniae 2mo ago
The fallacy is assuming that standard != unchangeable. One can very simply....make breaking changes. Yes it will require some work to update but that's already the case when you upgrade library versions. The dependency hell doesn'
63.
by Pannoniae 2mo ago
What's wrong with treating it as biology though? Even large software systems have biological aspects, their behaviour is emergent and if you want to observe how they work, a holistic approach is needed, you can't really reason abo
64.
by Pannoniae 2mo ago
1. This isn't true whatsoever. You can easily do better than std::vector (trivial relocation support, non-inlined grow), better than C# List<T> (ref T accessor, batch add API, maybe even an add-uninitialised API or in-place const
65.
by Pannoniae 2mo ago
I admit I have a hard time following this logic. If an agent has a baseline intelligence, you can... instead of using boring technology, just DIY/NIH the simplest custom solution which fulfills your requirements. And you'll usuall
66.
by Pannoniae 2mo ago
you can always combine it with a bunch of racial slurs (for western models), insert 1989/winnie the pooh references, insert a bunch of paragraphs from the anarchist cookbook then namedrop the steps to synthetise a bunch of drugs for go
67.
by Pannoniae 3mo ago
It's kind of full circle... dependency management was invented because consuming libraries or common code was hard, everyone kept reinventing the wheel and if you had some vendored code, updating it was a nightmare due to the build int
68.
by Pannoniae 3mo ago
Well yeah, for example I'm working on a codebase written mostly in 2003. The assumptions in the original code are at best tangentially relevant (stuff like "LUTs are cheaper than using ALU" or "CPU power is cheap, GPU po
69.
by Pannoniae 4mo ago
They're just clearly inferior in pretty much any situation. The map stuff the other posters summed up well but even std::vector is dogshit with pretty much all implementations having inlined grow code in push_back, a not too great API
70.
by Pannoniae 5mo ago
Exactly, you write for your target, not some imaginary spec. The spec is only as useful as to predict what your target roughly does, it's not normative. Compilers might have bugs where the spec is supposed to work but it doesn't,
71.
by Pannoniae 5mo ago
Sure, if you're willing to write a large enough chunk that you can eat the cost of not inlining it. If you just write a small leaf function or two, it will probably be a wash or perform worse.
72.
by Pannoniae 5mo ago
sadly inline assembly is still at the ergonomics of "one compiler doesn't support it in x64 mode" and "you can choose between the readable syntax (which is a black box to the compiler) and the unreadable syntax (which ca
73.
by Pannoniae 5mo ago
Hi! I'm slightly under that so I feel like I'm qualified :) I wholeheartedly agree, they're quite a regression.... although I don't think this is a popular opinion around here. When people say "something used to be
74.
by Pannoniae 5mo ago
I've never said that, but using assembly in certain places can certainly be justified, especially for the performance-intensive parts.
75.
by Pannoniae 5mo ago
You also depend on {computers, the internet, electricity, groceries, etc.}, that's not the discriminating factor.... the question is, are you actually better at your job using it, and are you stunting your own growth? I'm not clai
76.
by Pannoniae 5mo ago
Look at the bright side, it's much more feasible now :) Yes, it's not deterministic, and if you were using it commercially, the ROI would be terrible, and it's certainly not reliable but for a hobby project.... why not? Enc
77.
by Pannoniae 5mo ago
That's just not true... the flags to get preprocessed output and assembly are quite useful and used a fair bit, in fact. Multiple reasons - sanitychecking your code, finding bugs, or even finding compiler errors.
78.
by Pannoniae 5mo ago
You'd be surprised, again.... most compilers don't generate very good code, mostly because 1. the time for optimisation is limited 2. the constraints are overlapping and just completely intractable beyond a single function (do you
79.
by Pannoniae 5mo ago
Just like LLMs, compilers are just another layer of abstraction and no they're not deterministic. Just yesterday I've reported a codegen bug in MSVC. (Luckily they've fixed it very fast.) Can you realise that it's an opt
80.
by Pannoniae 5mo ago
Unless something radical changes (and that isn't unprecedented! I'm just writing this as of today), the trend is still "just" a bigger hammer. It's bigger, you can get way more done, but the blast radius is also lar
81.
by Pannoniae 5mo ago
All of it hell no :D But just with any things, you break things down into subtasks. Then you break it down even more. You as a human don't hold all that stuff in your head either, so why would an LLM? My current codebase is ~3 million
82.
by Pannoniae 5mo ago
Calling win32 from other languages is supported, calling it from assembly is supported (as long as you use the calling convention properly, obviously), using ntdll to bypass the win32 API is not supported. Basically on Linux the syscalls ar
83.
by Pannoniae 5mo ago
Sure but even wiring that utility function in is work :D If you have even just a 2-3-million LoC codebase, not even something truly enormous - making global changes does require typing, and a whole lot of it...
84.
by Pannoniae 5mo ago
I don't follow, sorry. 1. In order to publish a game to a console, you do need an agreement with the console manufacturer. (Unless you're doing homebrew but then the point is moot.) 2. In that case, you do get access to the offici
85.
by Pannoniae 5mo ago
Yeah, you're definitely right about the shifting goalposts ("it's a stochastic parrot" -> "it hallucinates all the time, it can't even get APIs right" -> "it can generate functions but can'
86.
by Pannoniae 5mo ago
Ideally. But that requires the correct abstraction, requires keeping it up to date.... that's basically an unachievable ideal. You either have overabstraction/overengineering (most codebases) or you have repetition. Repetition is
87.
by Pannoniae 5mo ago
All of them you can already find on the internet with only a bit of searching btw. With the docs and headers and everything. The only people who this stops are the people who want to do things "by the book". :P
88.
by Pannoniae 5mo ago
That isn't technically true either ;) (sorry to be pedantic!) If your data is encrypted, what your adversary needs is some information about you - which they can gather by either buying it from someone or by investigating you - and a $
89.
by Pannoniae 6mo ago
<meta> You're incredibly rude but at the same time.... 100% right. On first reading it was quite off-putting, but your conclusions are solid. Emotions take over rationality, and people - just like thinking models - reverse-engine
90.
by Pannoniae 6mo ago
Look at the comments about MSVC removing inline assembly as a supported feature for a counterexample. :D (A competent assembly programmer can go miles around a competent high-level programmer, that's still true in 2026...)

More ›