debois

6 ms·

1.
by debois 6mo ago
I switched from neovim because plugins and updates kept breaking it, and I never really did feel like I was in control of it anyway. Helix does what it does, no fuzz. Never breaks. You do start to think “can I get helix keybindings in my sh
2.
by debois 7mo ago
If it doesn’t run, it isn’t code. But things that don’t run have much less overhead than code: you don’t need to test then, update them, maintain them, they can’t really “not work”, people will adapt if they don’t make sense. I /love&#
3.
by debois 8mo ago
My mistake, sorry. Same for D above. Point stands, though: if your language is too far down the list, better algorithms might be enough.
4.
by debois 8mo ago
The study seems to be “solve this the obvious way, don’t think too hard about it”. Then the systems languages (C, Zig, C++) are pretty close, the GC languages are around an order of magnitude slower (C#, Java doing pretty good at ca. 3x), a
5.
by debois 9mo ago
I agree that Google (and in the above comment MS) failed to fulfill their lofty promises (“don’t be evil” etc.) But the blame is on us: we should have known better than to entrust our data to free services run by a company whose entire reve
6.
by debois 9mo ago
I recognize this part: > I don’t recall what happened next. I think I slipped into a malaise of models. 4-way split-paned worktrees, experiments with cloud agents, competing model runs and combative prompting. You’re trying to have the L
7.
by debois 10mo ago
We’ve used f# professionally for the computations-intensive parts of our product for a couple of years. Here’s what comes to mind: 1. Interop with C# is great, but interop for C# clients using an F# library is terrible. C# wants more explic
8.
by debois 2y ago
Note how much the principles here resemble general programming principles: keep complexity down, avoid frameworks if you can, avoid unnecessary layers, make debugging easy, document, and test. It’s as if AI took over the writing-the-program
9.
by debois 3y ago
The problem with peer-review is not the process itself, but that “peer-reviewed paper” is widely treated as if it meant “known scientific truth”.