I think there would be a lot less drama around this if authors were just up-front about how they use AI. Put it in your readme, just like you do with licenses.

The audacity to be nostalgic for Eclipse!

This video confuses at least three different concepts - quantum uncertainty, ternary computers, and "unknown" values.

Ternary computers are just not as good as binary computers. The way silicon works, it's always going to be much much slower.

"Unknown" values can be useful - they are common in SystemVerilog for example. But you rarely just have true, false and unknown, so it makes zero sense to bake that into the hardware. Verilog has 4 values - true, false, unknown and disconnected. VHDL has something like 9!

And even then the "unknown" isn't as great as you might think. It's basically poor-man's symbolic execution and is unable to cope with things like let foo = some_unknown_value ? true : true. Yes that does happen and you won't like the "solution".

High level programming concepts like option will always map more cleanly onto binary numbers.

Overall, very confused video that is trying to make it sound like there's some secret forgotten architecture or alternative history when there definitely isn't.

Really tempting but you can get such good computers second hand these days. I got a Ryzen 9 3950X (a few years old but 16 core and still awesome), with 128 GB of RAM and a 1TB SSD for £325. No way I'm paying 6 times that for a new machine that's 50% faster at best.

To be fair this was quite wtf-free. Mostly just unimportant formatting subtleties and stuff you'd never write.

Python definitely has bigger WTFs, like bool being an int, implicit bool conversion, implicit iteration of strings, etc.

Nah AI can be extremely useful for learning technologies. You just need to be careful to verify they aren't bullshitting you.

For example find an explanation of PPM compression that is concrete and simple. As far as I can tell it doesn't exist.

But I could ask ChatGPT and it told me how it works (probably) in just a few seconds. I haven't verified yet (at a BBQ) whether it is the correct algorithm but it's certainly a plausible one that would work.

It told me that you use a trie (typically) of symbol prefixes to record the probability of the following symbols, so for example you know that for the prefix "Th" the probability of "e" is 90%. Then you encode the symbol with arithmetic coding using the modelled probabilities. Apparently the typical max context length is 4-6.

That would have taken me hours to find by reading code and ancient papers but I can verify it a lot quicker.

asking the maintainers to lock down APIs which the C devs purposefully leave malleable, in part, to avoid binary blob drivers being feasible.

No, they were asking them to define the semantics of the filesystem APIs. Those semantics are not encoded in the C API but the Rust devs wanted to encode them in the Rust API to avoid making mistakes.

The C devs didn't want to, not because of concerns about binary drivers, but because the semantics are already broken. Apparently different filesystem drivers assume different semantics for the same functions and it's a whole mess. They don't want to face up to this and certainly don't want anyone pointing it out, so clearly it must be the Rust devs' fault for wanting APIs to have consistent semantics.

The rest of your comment is nonsense.

Yes it's terrible. The only hope on the horizon is uv. It's significantly better than all the other tooling (Poetry, pip, pipenv, etc.) so I think it has a good chance of reducing the options to just Pip or uv at least.

But I fully expect the Python Devs to ignore it, and maybe even make life deliberately difficult for it like they did for static analysers. They have some strange priorities sometimes.

Rust adoption is stagnating

Is it? I would like to see some evidence for that.

because of [the small standard library and potentially supply chain security issues]

Yeah I can guarantee that is not a significant reason for people to avoid Rust. If it was people wouldn't use NPM, where the problem is even worse.

I do think it would be good to putt some more stuff in the standard library makes sense, or even just add some kind of official sanction of de facto standard library crates like regex.... But this author is an idiot.

Ha they literally said about 5 times in this page that people often say "it's just a skill issue"... and here you are.

I love Rust but the author's points are 100% valid.

Yeah... Usually if you join a company with bad practices it's because the people who already work there don't want to do things properly. They tend to not react well to the new guy telling them what they're doing wrong.

Only really feasible if you're the boss, or you have an unreasonable amount of patience.

This is a misconception that's common among beginner C programmers. They think C is high level assembly and don't understand the kinds of optimisations modern compilers make. And they think they're hardcore and don't make mistakes.

Hope you figure it out eventually.