Gemini can't show me the fastest way to copy memory in C# because it's unethical

Re:Gemini can't show me the fastest way to copy memory in C#... by bombcar on Friday February 09, 2024 @04:40PM (#39320851)

No, it’s the superior patch speed.

It used to cost infinity dollars or be nearly impossible to patch software, so it was extensively tested and designed before shipping; now you ship it and if it breaks patch it anyway ship a new feature and a UI redesign quick!

Books can still be made but they take too long, and as you note most people don’t want to learn the tools they just want to get on with their task.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Gemini can't show me the fastest way to copy memory in C#... by smaudet on Friday February 09, 2024 @05:54PM (#39321503)

Patches are not necessarily good.

This is a massive issue with soft dev today.

That being said, the books can still exist - dynamically updated, well versioned books with frequent updates, and low cost distribution methods such as websites or module print formats.

The problem with frequent updates is the lack of rigor, which is partly why we don't see as much of this...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Gemini can't show me the fastest way to copy memory in C#... by WalterBright on Friday February 09, 2024 @06:47PM (#39321924)

My personal impression is that modern software is a lot less buggy than 1980s software.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Gemini can't show me the fastest way to copy memory in C#... by LandR on Saturday February 10, 2024 @08:52AM (#39326122)

I'm not convinced.

Most software I use today is awful, but then again it is so much more complicated. It is rare thought that I use something that had one purpose and does it well.

Interacting with a computer has never been more frustrating imo. It might be a lot of small niggly things but it feels like death by a thousand cuts.

[ Parent | on HN ]