> Easiest people to understand: someone hurt you (in this case disrupted your workflow, especially if pointlessly like this user thinks), you express the dissatisfaction to the person who did.
Are you aware you are talking about a FLOSS project that was gifted to you, and you are advocating for attacking for abusing the creator of said project because you can't even bother to contribute anything back?
> They are just passionate and most of the times annoyed because something as simple is not being done right.
I don't think this is the case at all. You are commenting in a discussion on how a maintainer of an unstable project which very clearly and unambiguously only targets and supports a specific version of a runtime. Still, said maintainer is being pestered by entitled users who attack the maintainer and how they chose to invest their free time contributing to the project with accusations of being "insane".
This is not "passion". This is sheer entitlement, and abuse on top.
If this was passion, you'd see users contributing their work with proposals to post releases. Even very low effort things like forking the repo and posting their custom releases would be infinitely more productive. You know, the core of FLOSS.
But no. You have someone doing their best generously contributing their time to provide something to the public, and in return they get insults and abuse.
> The difference obviously being, his way you own the memories; in what's currently deployed, it's the platform that owns them.
I don't think you are very familiar with the state of LLM assistants. Prompt files were a thing since ever, and all mainstream coding assistants support storing your personal notes in your own files in multiple ways. Prompt files, instruction files, AGENTS.md, etc.
The fact that today's and yesterday's models are quite capable of handling mundane tasks, and even companies behind frontier models are investing heavily in strategies to manage context instead of blindly plowing through problems with brute-force generalist models.
But let's flip this around: what on earth even suggests to you that most users need frontier models?
Everybody has difficult decisions to make in their daily lives and in their work.
Having access to a model that is drawing from good sources and takes time to think instead of hallucinating a response is important in many domains of life.
The fact that the C++ standard community has been working on Contracts for nearly a decade is something that by itself automatically refutes your claim.
I understand you want to self-promote, but there is no need to do it at the expense of others. I mean, might it be that your implementation sucked?
Late nineties is approaching thirty decades ago; if the C++ committee has now been working on this for nearly a decade, that's fifteen to twenty years of them not working on it. It's quite plausible that contracts simply weren't valued at the time.
Also, in my view the committee has been entertaining wider and wider language extensions. In 2016 there was a serious proposal for a graphics API based on (I think) Cairo. My own sense is that it's out of control and the language is just getting stuff added on because it can.
Contracts are great as a concept, and it's hard to separate the wild expanse of C++ from the truly useful subset of features.
There are several things proposed in the early days of C++ that arguably should be added.
I am not sure what the "truly useful features are" if you take into account that C++ goes from games to servers to embedded, audio, heterogeneous programming, some GUI frameworks, real-time systems (hard real-time) and some more.
I would say some of the features that are truly useful in some niches are les s imoortant in others and viceversa.
Not a very fair assumption. However, even if your not so friendly point was even true, I'd like people who have invented popular languages to "self-promote" more (here dlang). It is great to get comments on HN from people who have actually achieved something nice !
It should copy Zig's '= undefined;' instead of D's '= void;' The latter is very confusing: why have a keyword that means nothing, but also anything? This is a pretty common flaw within D, see also: static.
Nobody in D was confused by `= void;`. People understood it immediately.
> why have a keyword that means nothing, but also anything?
googling void: "A void is a space containing nothing, a feeling of utter emptiness, or a legal nullity, representing a state of absolute vacancy or lack."
"People" doesn't include me then. I had no idea that D had this feature for quite some time, despite using it fairly often in Zig, because when considering what the equivalent would be to search for, my brain somehow didn't make the leap to the keyword that represents literally nothing. Or as your Google search result says, "representing a state of absolute vacancy or lack." A less inappropriate use of "= void;" would be to zero-out something. I honestly find D's continual misuse of keywords like this to be really off putting and a contributing factor as to why I've stopped using it.
> I am somewhat dismayed that contracts were accepted. It feels like piling on ever more complexity to a language which has already surpassed its complexity budget, and given that the feature comes with its own set of footguns I'm not sure that it is justified.
I don't think this opinion is well informed. Contracts are a killer feature that allows implementing static code analysis that covers error handling and verifiable correct state. This comes for free in components you consume in your code.
Contracts aren't for handling errors. That blog post is extremely out of date, and doesn't reflect the current state of contracts
Modern C++ contracts are being sold as being purely for debugging. You can't rely on contracts like an assert to catch problems, which is an intentional part of the design of contracts
> This seems extremely confused. The copyright system does not have a way to grant these permissions because the material is not covered under copyright!
This opinion is simplistic. LLMs are trained with pre-existing content, and their output directly reflects their training corpus. This means LLMs can generate output that matches verbatim existing work. And that work can very well be subjected to copyright.
Language models are good at translation and retrieval. This also extends to computer languages. LLMs translate from GPL to other licenses the same way Google translate turns French to English, except that the source material is implicitly stored in the LLM.
> QA has a reputation problem. Because it is considered as unimportant role, good people don't get attracted to it.
Hard disagree. QAs' main tasks are acceptance testing and V&V. This means their work is to act as independent parties whose role is to verify that the results are indeed being delivered. Their importance is up there next to Product Owners.
The problem is that some QA roles are relegated to running the same old test scripts and do some bullshit manual exploratory tests that catch and assert nothing. It's the ultimate bullshit job as it's performative. This is clear in the way that LLM agents are seen as threatening the very existence of the role.
Are you aware you are talking about a FLOSS project that was gifted to you, and you are advocating for attacking for abusing the creator of said project because you can't even bother to contribute anything back?
reply