Off-topic but i wanted to read the article via the link but solving captcha on was so frustrating and i instead just can read it on unwall.app and it works just fine without captcha
Depends on your incentives, most people and companies are measuring Lines of codes and features as the metric so ofc it will increase it, but AI can create small KISS applications. It might have a little difficulties in doing so sometimes because it sometimes likes to overengineer things but I have to wonder how much of it is because it is RLHF'd to solve questions at any costs in terms of lines of code rather than training it in solving it in KISS principles. Also I wonder how AI will perform if we explicitly treat KISS as the only principle and have checks running on it and have it discard all the code which wouldn't follow KISS principle if it doesn't follow the principle.
This statement seems to be factually untrue. Mashayoshi Son owns 32-33% of Softbank and then the investors are like the Japanese Master Trust bank etc. Saudi Arabia is not even in top 10 of the investors list.
Saudi Arabia did recently invest 45 billion dollars in the vision fund which is an investment fund managed by Softbank but they haven't really invested within Softbank itself so not it is not mostly owned by Saudis from what the data can tell.
Yeah, but Lars Bak isn't exactly a nobody when it comes to computer science either. Although I guess Bak is more famous for the implementation of programming languages than their design.
Aside: funny how Dart and TS both have Danish creators.
I may be misremembering, but my recollection is that Dart was written off in large part because of Google. Distrust with them was already high as they were abusing their dominance with things like AMP, and people felt it was a bad idea to give them even more control over the web.
TypeScript is however a plain JavaScript linter, you remove the type annotations and have JavaScript, which was a consequence of the learnings versus other JavaScript wannabe replacements.
Also why after namespaces and enums, the team never introduced any other feature that wasn't also part of JavaScript standardisation process, and has since then discouraged their use.
A fundamental choice you have to make with a new programming language is how compatible you want it to be with existing languages and their ecosystems. Hewing closely to another language allows you to reuse and build on top of all of the code already written in that language. But it also means that you can be forced to recapitulate features from that language that aren't great. Building a new language and ecosystem from scratch lets you make a clean break from those but at the very large expense of having to build a universe from scratch.
TypeScript took the former approach. All of the world's existing JavaScript code is TypeScript too. You can freely interoperate between TypeScript and JavaScript, keep using your existing JavaScript libraries, and incrementally migrate your JS codebase to TS one file at a time.
At the same time, TypeScript inherits much of the dumb stuff about JavaScript. No real integer type, funny scoping semantics (though strict mode mostly addresses this), extreme dynamism that is hard to fit into static types. The latter is particularly important. TypeScript's type system is deliberately not sound in order to be able to mostly statically type JavaScript while allowing many of the weird and complex design patterns from that language. That in turn means that even fully typed TypeScript programs don't get the fully performance benefits of static types. That's the main reason that the TypeScript compiler itself is no longer written in TypeScript: JS is simply too slow because of dynamic typing.
Dart took a much larger step away from JavaScript. It has its own object model and runtime semantics. With Dart 2.0, it has a fully sound static type system and in 2.12 we shipped sound handling of null. Because these static semantics are fully sound, the compiler can take advantage of types to generate smaller, faster code. Performance is complex, but Dart's runtime performance is in the same bucket as Java and C#, which is about as good as a GC language can get.
The cost is that migrating an existing web application to Dart is pretty much a rewrite. It was really hard for us to get any real traction until Flutter came out. With Flutter, users are already accepting that they are writing a new app for that framework, so the hop to a new language was more manageable.
I don't know how AI affects this calculus. AI can make it much faster to automatically migrate a program from one language to another. But I think it also makes human users more conservative about which language they use. Since they aren't writing as much of the code anyway, they may have less incentive to care about using a "better" language.
I agree completely that Hejlsberg is a star and very tough to compete with. I've always thought of programming languages more as offering different ways to solve problems and less about one trying to win at the expense of another. I don't want Dart to beat TypeScript, I just want Dart to be the best it can be for what it is.
> Since they aren't writing as much of the code anyway, they may have less incentive to care about using a "better" language.
I wonder if it's the opposite (in fact blog posts to that tune were posted here more than once): if LLMs are supposed to be writing most of the code, and taking away the friction of actually writing the code, I guess it means one should pick the language based on project requirements and performance since any language is the exact same to work with.
I remember people saying that they would be impressed if AI starts writing a pure assembly which seemed like a high strech to many.
Nobody even mostly said that they would be impressed by AI if it can read and write weights because that thing itself felt so out of the blue and unthinkable that AI could even do that (such a high strech)
I am surprised that it did that and I am just left feeling technically impressed. This is insane.
The more AI starts demonstrating its capabilities, the harder it just becomes to imagine what thing would genuinely impress us next. (We need a term for this as I have observed it from the trend of [waiting for AI to write adobe] -> [waiting for AI to write assembly] etc.)
In some sense, my interpretation is to basically focus on what matters personally and in that, try to focus on the positive and to not worry about the societal issues which are out of your hand.
Even logically, most likely these societal issues are coming for everybody and what you can do is to be best prepared for them which inevitably means to focus on yourself (which is a good advice as ever at any point of time).
So why worry about societal issues and instead not just focus on what matters personally and something which you can take an action on and improve upon (Similar to Stoic philosophy maybe)
(I struggle to live by these words, Hopefully I improve, I am trying to watch negative news less nowadays and would like to focus more on hope and personal growth)
Ironically, I am gonna create an Hackernews Aggregator of Aggregators as I see that myself, you and HackerHype[0] (on which you commented as well) have all tried to build the same thing xD
Though jokes aside, Kinda impressive that almost all of us are converging on the same idea. Great minds thinks alike haha!
PS: hnrecommends.com is a website listed in your aggregator but it seems that there is an heroku error on that website which fails to show it there.
Another idea though, I don't know if I am grasping at straws here but perhaps an MCP server can be created where I can just link that and then say search "I want to find a good non fiction book" and then it can look at the aggregator of aggregator, go to the HN book aggregator and then it can then take into the data at HNbook into reference to give the final suggestion and the AI can then tell me how verified/vouched it was by HN. The same can happen for dev tools, github projects, movies, tv, youtube videos etc.
Maybe we can all then build an interface on top of that MCP itself but still, I am just in love with what the community is building and these projects are lovely because they show that love outwards and helps in showing how good HN sometimes is :-D
You beat me to it! I had something similar as well when I had read such comments about aggregating them all up and I was seeing multiple individual projects prop up and I wanted to build an aggregator for that.
For me these were all the projects that I had included when building[0]
Have Terra run over the 11Gb of data definitely helped me with the speed. And sure, I think I too should add a link to mine now that it has a HN link. I'd be interested to see if your search gets you something Terra missed.
I know this is besides the point but I genuinely remember a time not very long ago that people used to say that they would kill for an claude opus 5 model at home or an open weights model and that opus 4.8/5 are the first models which finally get what they are suggesting.
Seems like our expectations and the floor has been rising at such an exponential rate.
Has someone created a benchmark for our expectations to see how much they've grown for new model releases? I'd be curious to see some of the data :-D
> a benchmark for our expectations to see how much they've grown for new model releases?
Posters have been saying they'd be happy with open-weight Fable 5 since before F5 was public and I saw one poster on HN say it last week. And with those posts there's usually a few mentioning the truism 'goalposts tend to move' and we haven't met our future selves or seen the future context we'll be in.
Studies show humans are poor predictors of our own future wants, needs, preferences and behaviors and few are fully aware how far and often we gradually move goalposts. Some of those posters weren't really making a precise, quantified statement. Many were expressing something more directional like "Wouldn't it great if {best, most costly thing I want but can't get or afford} were {readily available free or cheap } ?" Those variables update every time the sentence is output.
And in recent months models are saturating more of the benchmarks HN posters relate to and more of the real-world workloads we have. Six month ago, model flaws were more obvious and common. They still happen today, but for more of us, they're rarer, more complex and workload dependent. It's getting harder or takes longer for us to see clear, consistent differences between similar models and model versions. You can even see it in Simon's fanciful bike-riding pelican 'not-a-benchmark'.
I'm not saying that models are now great at everything (or even close), just that for a lot of us they're good enough at our current things that it's getting harder to personally gauge by how much. So we have to rely on complex composite benchmarks (which increasingly don't reflect any one thing at high granularity) or proxy reports about 'other people's things' like frontier theoretical mathematics.
I know that but given that it's most likely seems to be an open-weights model or that you can still run theoretically at home without being at the whims of Anthropic/OpenAI is still quite extraordinary.
https://unwall.app/arstechnica.com/gaming/2026/11/the-tech-m...
reply