This seems like it doesn't really answer OP's question, which is specifically about the practical uses or misuses of LLMs, not about whether the "I" in "AI" is really "intelligent" or not.

There is only one mention of Python being slow, and that's in the form of a joke where Python is crossed out and replaced with "the wrong tool for the job." Elsewhere in the post, Python is mentioned more positively; it just isn't what's needed for the kind of gamedev the author wants to do.

I'm addressing the bit that I quoted, saying that an interpreted language "must" have valid semantics for all code. I'm not specifically addressing whether or not JavaScript is right in this particular case of min().

...but also, what are you talking about? Python throws a type error if you call min() with no argument.

Based on the headline, they've probably maladapted to Mac OS, which doesn't actually have a scaling setting.

(This is somewhat baffling to me, since Apple clearly cares a lot about their display hardware and about having good screen resolution.)

That's called a mailing list

/s

Marcan pretty clearly isn't saying that feature requests wore him down. He's saying that people saying "what you've built so far isn't useful" wore him down.

(Plus, your original analogy about parents and children is completely lost by now.)

Presumably by people like Marcan working to make it happen, rather than by random people complaining it's not already done.

I agree that a symbolic representation of the splatters would probably be more interesting. The whole point is that random character sequences are often valid Perl, though, so changing the generation method wouldn't change that aspect.

Well, sure, if the appeal of vim for you is that it "just works" on every platform you use, then there's no advantage to adopting neovim. That's no reason to complain that neovim isn't meeting your needs, though.

What do you mean, the docs don't explain the fix? One of the most prominent topics in the documentation is how to migrate from vim: https://neovim.io/doc/user/nvim.html#nvim-from-vim

"All leading programming languages...are actually specified in international standards"? Here's an actual list: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Programming_languages_with_an_ISO_standard

Off the top of my head, here are some languages that aren't on there: Java, Python, Perl. Some languages that are on there but almost no one uses: ALGOL-60, CHILL (which appears to be extinct?), MUMPS, and Modula-2. Notably, there's a version of Lisp closely related to Common Lisp, but I've never actually heard of anyone using it.

Of the ones that are on there, most are not actually standards-driven the way C and C++ are, and even those each existed for over a decade and became widely used prior to standardization.

The current latest C# ECMA standard describes version 6.0; the current C# version is 12.0. The ISO spec is even further behind.

Standards don't determine language usage, popularity, or longevity.

I'm not sure I'd consider that "failing". At first glance, I don't mind the distinct "m" glyphs being juxtaposed. But perhaps I'd find it annoying after a while.