I have seen this thrown around a lot, but I do not think it is true anymore.
V lang had a rough launch from what I can tell, with the author overselling and mistakenly underestimating the amount of work needed to fulfill their vision.
V still has a ways to go, but it is in constant heavy development with lots of contributors. It also has a wide gambit of interesting hobby projects using it.
They said vaporware, which isn't necessarily the same thing as abandonware. It still could be vaporware if it never lives up to delivering what it promised. I'm not sure on the current state of those promises though, so I don't know if the outlook of it being vaporware is true anymore. At one point it looked like it, but I haven't kept up with it enough.
This is a good POV. For a while there they did think they had a chance at finally figuring out how to solve the halting problem. They of course haven't, and had no chance to do so, but they wanted to discover that for sure, for themselves. So I admire them for trying. These days autofree handles about 95% of allocations, but what's left dangling is pruned by their very low cost tight cleanup looped GC. If you really need to you can do manual memory management, from my fairly substantial usage of the language so far I've been a satisfied customer for sure. I've found compiler bugs, strange behaviour, edge cases etc., yes the team are blunt and to the point, but they're the most professional language team I've ever interacted with, often responding within hours, one time a compiler fix was released the next day.
New and non-plagiarized text is essential for all the AI models to train on. Without these the AI models will reach the saturation point or worse the output will not be as effective as it can be.
If AI trains on generated text it is equivalent of an incestuous relationship and I don't have elaborate on analogy further.
Having filed multiple patents, it does not leave a good taste in your mouth (esp software patents). You know you are bullshitting but unfortunately it needs to be done because others will do it and deny you to use the invention.
Fully agree. Over 20 years ago, I did the same job as the Patent Engineer (I had a slightly different title, but same role) at a big law firm. Half of the patents I filed were BS software patents for a name brand tech company, and the other half were for actually novel and cool inventions for things like super-efficient distillation/chilling systems for coffee and satellite antennas for moving vehicles.
Getting that job was almost as easy as getting a software job in 2019. I had a masters in EE and a few years of SWE experience. I sent out 5 applications to top local law firms, got 3 interviews, and one offer over the course of a month. Apparently, the bulk of people in that role were post-docs in bio/chem who weren't excited about managing student loan debt while being underpaid lab people. (The EE/CS contingent was 5 out of 30 in the role, and I was the only one with actual SWE experience, so it gave the me and the firm creditability with inventors)
My salary matched my SWE salary, I had my own office + secretary, and the firm paid overtime and law school tuition. They also charged $250/hour for my time. I also only lasted about year in that role since it was very isolating and not collaborative.
The coolest part of that whole experience came a couple years later when I went to dinner with my wife, her close friend, and the friend's serious boyfriend. In the "what do you do" chit chat, he mentioned working with someone on a new way to brew and chill coffee quickly that they were close to bringing to market.
When I asked if it works like [describes invention exactly] his mind was absolutely blown away. As it turns out, I wrote their patent.
This assertion needs a lawsuit and deep pockets. Most startups will not be able to do this.
Infact the patent holder can file a lawsuit against a startup. Now even if the startup can prove that the patent is invalid, it has to spend precious money on the lawsuit.
Yes, we live in a world where patents exist. It's still possible to be correct about certain things in that world, and the fact that one does not like that patents exist doesn't entitle people to be incorrect about how the patent system works.
> Does this mean if I disclose an invention, that nobody can patent it after a year?
Others can. But during their application who is going to tell that there is a prior art? Patent offices only do basic checks on existing patents and not on the wider internet.
Once the others get their patent, you can appeal [1] it.
"prior art" is usually meaningless in a first-to-file country like the USA.
i.e. if you disclose your IP publicly, there is zero protection from getting scooped by competitors and trolls. If you NDA more than 17 entities, than it becomes public domain in some countries.
Patent-pending status is somewhat of a more economical tool, and buys time to entrench a manufacturing product line in a market. A fully complete patent is only useful for litigation and customs enforcement... and can't be revised to cover sleazy IP workarounds.
We only won about 4 out of 7 international scope patents I drafted, so YMMV. =3
C++ isn't exactly famous for being readable to begin with.
If the name Sean Baxter doesn't ring a bell, he's creating the Circle compiler which one step after another fixes the problems of C++ (while not trailing off into a completely new language):
> which one step after another fixes the problems of C++
Somehow, multiple groups of people have recently decided they want to "fix the problem": Carbon, Circle, CppFront2. But apparently, it's different fixes, and the formulation of the "the problem" is different.
I am wary of rushing to do this, considering the fate of the D, a previous attempt to "fix the problem" with C++.
AFAIK the big difference of Circle to both Carbon and CppFront2 is that Circle is (mostly?) a superset of C++17, so it doesn't change the basic syntax, just adds things on top.
I don't care much either way tbh, just watching from the sidelines while happily churning out C and Zig code ;)
But IMHO Sean Baxter does more for C++ than the entire committee ever did in the last three decades - if C++ would have moved into a similar direction I probably wouldn't have dropped it as my main language).
An annoying but rather valid quip by Bjarne Stroustrup is that "there are only two kinds of languages: the ones people complain about, and the ones nobody uses." D has, statistically, not been attactive enough for people to switch to it from C++. Perhaps this is unfortuante... ? I wouldn't mind a link to an argument in favor of switching to (today's) D from (today's) C++.
It may be done on purpose? To me this looks like a satirical piece in response to some "nooooo how dare you introduce lifetime annotations to C++"-style comments on the same author (Sean Baxter)'s C++ lifetime annotation proposal.
But that’s the point. Look at all these American workers who quit and we can’t find qualified candidates to fill their vacant positions, so that, Senator, is why we need your vote to expand the H1B visa program.
India has mandatory EPF (India's counterpart of the 401(k)) contribution for salaried employees, and in cases of dual employment (i.e. dual streams of employer deposits) it causes all sorts of issues and in most cases result in immediate blacklisting of the employee.
Also, labor protection for white-caller workers is non-existent in India. Basic expectations like fixed working hours, 5-day weeks, paid overtime etc are luxuries only attributable to the absolute top cream of employers (which mostly tend to be non-Indian MNCs). Other basic things like 2-week notices, flexible retirement and paternal leaves are just straight-up absent, even in top employers.
I worked with Indian off-shore and on-shore outsourcers, and their working conditions terrified me. These were IT consultants, and as you said, all but the tiniest percentage at the very top were treated like slaves.
There are 2 types of companies in India at present:
1. Services
2. Products
The product companies's culture and environment are on-par with silicon valley and this includes a good pay as well.
Services is another matter. The fundamental issue is the business model. These companies earn revenue per person and hence the incentive is to over-staff or over-sell the people needed. There is no incentive to solve or be pro-active about customer's problems.
Not in India but in Hungary you also have exit paperwork. Without the exit papers from your previous company, a new company cannot begin making social security contributions on your behalf, which means your employment is not legal (there is a grace period I think but most companies will not allow you to start work without the exit papers). Where I work this is not weaponised to stop people leaving, but we do withhold the exit papers until the last day of the notice period (it is common in Hungary to have to give 30-60 days’ notice to your current employer) as a type of enforcement.
Same in my country, to handover the information about leave days taken etc. Employer is not legally allowed to withhold it, though (but some use it as a leverage to get the employee to return all work equipment etc).
At a coarser level it works in India, but not at granular level. If you are involved in a lawsuit then it can drag for years. So essentially it becomes "justice delayed is justice denied".
The less said about Gandhi the better. He had an amazing PR in the age when there was no concept of PR.
The world has always been divide on: Owners and workers. This transcends communism and capitalism. Owners always wants more work out of workers. Owners unknowingly or knowingly behave as if they own the people. This was literally true when slavery was widespread.
Even in western countries we find the unwritten understanding between Steve Jobs and Eric Schmidt not to poach each other's engineers [1]. Where is a the "free hand of markets" here? Does it not limit the career opportunities for employees?
Activision Blizzard, one of the top AAA game developer had huge culture problems. There is a lawsuit as well [2]
How is it in the land of free and ideals of Martin Luther King and Abraham Lincoln get to a point where humans are treated like corporate property?
It will probably be similar to when a physical product is defective because of a faulty 3rd party component.
More importantly, as a professional software developer, the testing of my product should find problems in 3rd party components. If I chose poorly and the 3rd party component doesn't do what it's supposed to do, that's my responsibility. I can't just slough it off onto someone else.
> my product should find problems in 3rd party components.
Does that mean that say a security vulnerability in openssl is a responsibility of all software which uses them? I think its unreasonable to expect software projects/products to find things like heartbleed.
What about bugs in kernel/OS? How many user-mode software can find bugs in kernel/OS?
The EU has two primary types of legislation, regulations and directives. There are other things such as recommendations etc, but those are usually pretty clear from their name, so I'll exclude those from the explanation. A simple way to think about a regulation is essentially an EU-wide law, it applies the way it was written in Brussels across all of EU. Directives, that's the one in the article, are more like interfaces. They're a guideline of goals to achieve, and every country must implement their own version of the directive.
Why do directives even exist? Because the legal landscape can be widely different between EU countries. Directives give every country flexibility in implementing them in a way that is consistent with the way their laws work, existing precedents, etc. The downside is obviously that the implementations will somewhat differ from country from country.
This means that unless the implementations between countries are fairly consistent, the definition of what working as intended means will vary from country to country.
> There are times when a feature is used in a way which was not intended by the developers. Now do the developers have to publish their test scenarios?
I think the vendor will need to be a lot more clear about what the supported use case is; and what use cases aren't supported.
1. Anyone claiming to know India well is either foolish or lying? (This includes Indians). India is diverse on all counts imaginable (color, language, wealth, urbanization, etc). Every permutation will throw up large number of people.
2. India consistently disappoints the pessimistic and the optimistic. If you see the bad side (poverty, chaos, etc) it is easy to bet that this country is going nowhere but this is just few scenes of long movie. There are other scenes and its easy to be absolutely bullish.
3. Think in absolute numbers as well and not just percentages. 3% in India translates to lot of people. It is more than the adult population of many countries. Apply this to any metric you will get large numbers on either side of the bell curve. So in India you will find 3% of the smartest and also the dumbest (in IQ terms) both in huge numbers. You will see these (only a subset of) 3% migrating to western countries and be hugely successful.
As per me the only way to deal with India is to accept its all hues and colors.
[1] https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&channel=ent...
reply