cjglo

Do you find ChatGPT is good with C++?

In my experience, it does very well, but then suddenly is very confident of something that is wrong.

Maybe its like this for all languages, but it seems way more accurate with python.

Also a former Cap1 employee here, the 3 people managing a team of 3 engineers is quite common.

My last team before leaving had 3 engineers: tech lead, me, and a junior dev. It had 4 non-engineers managing us: a product owner, a head Agile Delivery Lead, a more junior agile Delivery Lead, and our manager.

Not analogous.

Rust-style result types continue the normal control flow.

Any exception thrown deep into a function can be very hard to debug. The normal line of execution is stopped, even without a return, and if it’s a checked exception it can “bubble up” to higher functions despite nothing signifying a return, just a marker saying somewhere this can throw an exception.

Exceptions are terrible.

I don’t like Go error handling, but exceptions are terrible and not better.

Rust/Zig/Swift approach is definitely the best.

In the words of Gavin Belson:

“Make no mistake, though they are the ones leaving, it is I who must remain and endure the heavy burden of their failure.”

It was an online website right around the dot com bubble.

It definitely was a tech company by that time’s standards.

Nowadays every company has an online store, but that was not the case when Amazon was selling books online that you usually had to go to a store for.

Elixir offers a lot of the great protections of rust.

If you haven’t tried it, I 100% recommend.

Doesn’t Kotlin or Swift offer those things?

I agree Rust is a great language (and has many great things besides its safety protections) but I do think that putting it everywhere when it isn’t necessary is dangerous.

If one doesn’t exist already, someone should make a rust-like language with garbage collection.

EDIT: Thanks to reading other comments, I remembered Elixir, which offers a lot of the concurrency safety of rust without the memory risks.

If I had to guess, it’s a trick to get people engaged.

There’s no link or request for money, so people probably respond more often.

I imagine like many areas of persuasion (like interrogation), getting someone to start talking is the “foot in the door” that starts to snow ball, even if it’s not about anything relevant.

In fairness, all the businesses that currently accept it (at least in America) as a method of payment would likely stop accepting it if they couldn’t exchange it for dollars.

Could be wrong here, but in physics and most natural sciences, you don’t throw away your model if you have one experiment against it.

Usually isn’t it looking for an experiment that proves it and is repeatable?

If I discover a new element in one experiment, the results are published.

After publication, many labs will try to repeat and its not taken away if one can’t do it. Only if all can’t and it casts doubt on whether I did it in the first place.