You said

This proposal is a new iteration of the language and standard library. It would provide safe language features for preventing such problems existing in the first place.

Either it’s a draft or it’s a new iteration of the language. Can’t be both.

Right now, we have to compile the compiler for this ourselves. Pardon my skepticism; I’m not sure this is mature enough.

Edit: I’m talking about the project not the idea. Sean Baxter has shown up everywhere for awhile talking about this. I think his idea has a ton of maturity. I don’t know that the project itself has enough maturity to mainline yet.

Where does the document number come from? I can’t find anything about the SG or linked orgs that defines a sequence.

I have heard the same rhetoric about IDEs, autocomplete (Intellisense, Jedi, etc.), DevOps, and frameworks. The kernel of truth across all of them is the separation between a dev and good dev. It is getting easier and easier to have something built for you using AI in your IDE in a framework that abstracts all the things away dumped into a prebuilt pipeline that deploys your artifacts for you. A dev can do that. A good dev understands the tools and knows when to dig into things.

I have yet to see a decrease in the number of good devs I meet even though IDEs slowly replaced text editors (and editors became strong enough to become IDEs). Frameworks have enabled more good devs to focus on business logic. DevOps provides solid guard rails for everything.

I don’t know if there’s an increase in the number of superficial devs. I haven’t interviewed junior dev candidates in awhile. I do know the market is flooded right now so I’d argue there might be other factors.

Also overall I do agree with the idea that letting copilot do everything for you means you don’t understand anything. Shit was the same way when cookbooks were common.

$2/mo is pretty close to what Reddit premium was back before they turned the Reddit silver meme into a real thing! That’s a great amount to donate. Don’t sell yourself short.

The most frustrating thing about this article is that it completely ignores that good movies targeted at kids still have to be good. Personal complaints aside, the new Mario movie was reasonably good for adults and great for kids. Pixar keeps churning out things that are fantastic on many levels. Bluey is an amazing show that can resonate with kids and parents. I don’t for a minute buy the elitist bullshit of “well you’re not a kid so you can’t comment.” Muppet Treasure Island holds the fuck up as an adult so this writer can fuck right off.

You’ve turned this into a catch 22. If there were no female characters, you could argue that’s sexist. If the idiotic boss was female, you could argue all of the dumb characters are female so that’s sexist. If Jarod were the only female, that would be sexist.

How does this sketch get rewritten in such a way that it is not casually sexist?

It’s okay for background noise. It is infuriating to watch. It’s not even slightly funny at a bad movie level of funny. It’s just bad.

A single character, per your definition, is not blatant malicious code. Stop moving the goalposts.

It’s clear you don’t understand the space and you don’t seem to have any interest in acting in good faith based on your other comments so good luck.

I mean anything is a good fit for future, science fiction AI if we imagine hard enough.

What you describe as “blatant malicious code” is probably only things like very specific C&C domains or instruction sets. We already have very efficient string matching tools for those, though, and they don’t burn power at an atrocious rate.

You’ve given us an example so PoC||GTFO. Major code AI tools like Copilot struggle to explain test files with a variety of styles, skips, and comments, so I think you have your work cut out for you.

That’s fair! I agree with that.