VyseofArcadia's comments

Could we also consider just not connecting critical systems to the internet at large? No reason, for example, for the Jaguar assembly line to depend on an internet connection.

I mean, I also don't know Bun and Vite. I've at least seen React. You should probably just explain the whole stack.

Answer's in the article. There is a screen behind the wheel for the speedometer, odometer, etc. The backup cam displays there.

This is amazing. I hope it succeeds. If I had any use for a truck I'd be lining up to buy one. They make one in a compact sedan or hatchback form factor and I am in. Heck, even better a subcompact.

A summary:

> Embrace

Yay, MS loves open source!

> Extend

Wow, VS Code is so useful!

> Extinguish

shocked Pikachu meme

That's optimistic. Sci-fi has taught us that way worse forms of AI are possible.

I feel like once a language is standardized (or reaches 1.0), that's it. You're done. No more changes. You wanna make improvements? Try out some new ideas? Fine, do that in a new language.

I can deal with the footguns if they aren't cheekily mutating over the years. I feel like in C++ especially we barely have the time to come to terms with the unintended consequences of the previous language revision before the next one drops a whole new load of them on us.

There's a special place in hell for orgs that do this. Google has been doing the same thing with Android.

IIRC Apple at least has always been fairly clear and consistent with what bits of its software are open and what bits aren't. To my knowledge they haven't been breaking off chunks of Darwin and closing them. (Although if I'm wrong do correct me.)

Another roughly contemporary point of comparison, Haiku OS: https://www.haiku-os.org/slideshows/haiku-1/

I wonder, does it just let you draw pictures based on the as-advertised color and resolution limitations, or does it take into account clever programming tricks that can increase the color count (with some limitations)?

Having worked professionally with both C++ and Objective-C[0], I greatly prefer the latter. I'm not in love with either of them, but Objective-C feels so clean and well-thought out compared to the insanity of C++.

That's ok, C++23 is going to add another group of features that will be half-adopted at best in legacy codebases that will totally fix everything this time for real.

[0] in the same codebase via the unholy chimera that is Objective-C++

> Also a 19,000 line C++ program(this is tiny) does not take 45 minutes unless something is seriously broken

Agreed, 45 minutes is insane. In my experience, and this does depend on a lot of variables, 1 million lines of C++ ends up taking about 20 minutes. If we assume this scales linearly (I don't think it does, but let's imagine), 19k lines should take about 20 seconds. Maybe a little more with overhead, or a little less because of less burden on the linker.

There's a lot of assumptions in that back-of-the-envelope math, but if they're in the right ballpark it does mean that Jai has an order of magnitude faster builds.

I'm sure the big win is having a legit module system instead of plaintext header #include

> The net effect of this is that the software you’re running on your computer is effectively wiping out the last 10-20 years of hardware evolution; in some extreme cases, more like 30 years.

As an industry we need to worry about this more. I get that in business, if you can be less efficient in order to put out more features faster, your dps[0] is higher. But as both a programmer and an end user, I care deeply about efficiency. Bad enough when just one application is sucking up resources unnecessarily, but now it's nearly every application, up to and including the OS itself if you are lucky enough to be a Microsoft customer.

The hardware I have sitting on my desk is vastly more powerful that what I was rocking 10-20 years ago, but the user experience seems about the same. No new features have really revolutionized how I use the computer, so from my perspective all we have done is make everything slower in lockstep with hardware advances.

[0] dollars per second

I think end-users should always be empowered to be cavalier with their own cybersecurity. Organizations managing the data of others, however, should be held to a higher standard. If this means that an organization is using curl, they should have a PE responsible for auditing curl for security flaws.

I think we're basically describing the same thing. Asking a software engineering process to be the same as a physical engineering process is not realistic. A PE for SEs would look more like a code of ethics and conduct than a PE for say civil engineering.

The key thing to borrow from physical engineering is the concept of a sign off. A PE would have to sign off on a piece of software, declaring that it follows best practices and has no known security holes. More importantly, a PE would have the authority and indeed obligation to refuse to sign off on bad software.

But expecting software to have clear, well-understood, deterministic requirements and follow a physical engineering requirements-based process? Nah. Maybe someday, I doubt in my lifetime.

> My point here is, I'd really hate to gatekeep software development to a small group of "licensed" engineers. If anything, I want the opposite--to enpower more people to make software for themselves, so they can make their computers work for them. (This is why I dislike iOS so much.)

I 100% agree. I wouldn't want to gatekeep software development in general. I would only put the PE requirement on companies that are running a service connected to the internet that collects user data.

Want to make an application that never phones home at all? Go nuts. Want to run a service that never collects any sensitive data? Sure thing! Want to run a service that needs sensitive data to function? Names, addresses, credit card info? Yeah, you're going to need a PE to sign off of that.

Side note, I was a math teacher in a previous life. Congrats on the relatively new career, and thanks for your service.

How is creating a professional certification a technical solution? This sounds like a people solution to a people problem.

I feel like requiring software "engineers" to be actual capital E Engineers would fix a lot of problems in our industry. You can't build even a small bridge without a PE, because what if a handful of people get hurt? But on the other hand your software that could cause harm to millions by leaking their private info, sure, whatever, some dork fresh out of college is good enough for that.

And in the current economic climate, even principled and diligent SEs might be knowingly putting out broken software because the bossman said the deadline is the end of the month, and if I object, he'll find someone who won't. But if SEs were PEs, they suddenly have standing, and indeed obligation, to push back on insecure software and practices.

While requiring SEs to be PEs would fix some problems, I'm sure it would also cause some new ones. But to me, a world where engineers have the teeth to push back against unreasonable or bad requirements sounds fairly utopian.

It's not about visual quality so much as the complete inability of Atari to understand that people's taste in games had moved on. In 1986, Super Mario Bros was still hottest game in the world, over a million sold in the US alone. Platformers were in, big time. And the Atari 7800 launched with... Centipede.

Ahh, I always forget Atari Corporation and Atari games were different. Thanks for the correction.