Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | bowsamic's commentslogin

It’s pretty obvious why they didn’t, they’re GC by default. That’s already enough to put people off, even if it’s “not a problem” in reality, people will just avoid it for systems programming if they hear that, they will assume all the good features need the GC

Nim is stack allocated by default, and you annotate types explicitly with `ref` to use the GC. Even then, the compiler elides reference counting using borrow checks, you can choose different GC options, and the GC isn't stop the world like most. You don't need to touch reference counting if you don't want to, and Nim fits embedded dev pretty well for that reason.

GC was the default in the earlier versions of Nim and ARC is still default today. That’s why people ignore it

Nim 2 defaults to ORC which is ARC with cycle detection.

Nim 2 is a great systems language. If you want to avoid possible cycle collection delays just use ARC which is the same as C++ / RAII or Rust's Rc.


You’re missing the point. It isn’t about whether it is or isn’t, it’s about PR

I'm surprised that the LLM that was used to vibecode this didn't point it out

A theoretically perfect next token prediction machine is just an LLM with a temperature of 0, which performs worse than one with a non-zero temperature (i.e. imperfection)

The "prediction" has nothing to do with predicting the future, it just means choosing the most likely next token for existing human text


No that would be a pretty terrible next token predictor. It would perfectly match the training data, but the training data is just a sample of what we are really trying to predict: human language, knowledge, and thinking, which is inherently probabilistic. Perfectly matching the training data is a pretty good sign that you've overfit.

The point of fantasy or even surrealism is to contrast with the parts of the work that are chosen to be realistic. When random parts of the work are broken in meaningless ways it becomes slop

That quoted part seems comically contradictory

Wow, as a MacBook user for the last decade I had thought the rest of technology would have caught up by now with such a basic feature. Embarrassing


It's one of the reasons Microslop have been pushing Windows for ARM, only for them to discover that ARM doesn't actually solve this problem. It's less likely to cause problems just because there are less Windows ARM devices out there, with less variety and thus more consistency, but the underlying problem of drivers and other BS being able to block sleep and Windows not being able to handle it is unsolved. Heck, sleep working just fine on x86 Macbooks should have told them that.

Even worse is the fact that support for S3 sleep is going away, so if that did work for you, you'll be pushed over to using S0 sleep, which also doesn't actually solve this problem to any significant degree.


Can’t guarantee quality when you have a billion hardware permutations.


Which vendor has a billion hardware permutations ?


What about vendors like Asus, Dell, HP, Lenovo? Don't they have any QC?


Going by the article, Asus clearly don't. Given the stories floating around about the others, I doubt they have it too, except maybe Lenovo on Thinkpads and the like, although they too aren't immune from problems that really should be caught in QC.


He said women are less interested in programming than men


Are you saying they aren’t? Then why in CS majors there are usually 5-10 men for every woman?


No, I think they are, I agree with him


if i said men are less interested in teaching would that be misandrist? genuine question


No, but I agree with Jon Blow


He should visit a university, CS is majority women students nowadays.


He said that he foresees the effort to deal with open source community will be huge so I think he’s apprehensive of that effort


I think it’s absolutely incredible. Sure maybe it’s exhausting but that’s a good thing, it means the puzzles are challenging


Solving 600 10x10 jigsaw puzzles in a row would easily exhaust you without posing any challenge at all.


In this case it’s more like 600 sudoku that introduce and teach new methods without needing an external guide, and that is great for me


I have little sympathy, since I think it is a result of many decades of complacency when it comes to thinking about why want to people do what they do and instead just enjoying being the ones with the results and money. People who love the process and see the human as inherently valuable won't have a problem. I'm more shocked that there are so many brilliant people who are so results-oriented and don't even have a concept of value outside of that. I'm kind of disgusted by the tears actually


> I have little sympathy, since I think it is a result of many decades of complacency when it comes to thinking about why want to people do what they do and instead just enjoying being the ones with the results and money.

It's not clear from your comment: Are you talking about math professors?

If so, what money? They make a living, but it's not that great. I just checked the salary of two associate professors at my university: $80-85K.

And keep in mind they often start their careers quite late. Often multiple postdocs after PhD. Starting a tenure track position in your mid 30's is not common.

> I'm more shocked that there are so many brilliant people who are so results-oriented and don't even have a concept of value outside of that. I'm kind of disgusted by the tears actually

The whole point of the article is that the person crying is because he loves the process and is worried the human connection will be gone.


This is exactly my perspective as well. Seeing humans as inherently valuable is the key. It's shocking to me that so many people seem to have been reducing humans to the results they are able to produce and now that the results appear to be drying up, their perception of their own human value is going down with it.


I’m fully STEM: software developer with a physics PhD with a mechanical engineer wife, but this is certainly just deserts for the STEM people, who mocked the humanities and especially philosophy for centuries (literally, this started back with Kant even) for spending time thinking about these questions. STEM people are not at all spiritually prepared for it, and this is the main disappointment for me. I spent many years struggling with publish or perish in physics but all those around me claimed they simply loved doing physics and that that’s what mattered. Now as soon as their exclusive ability to give results is slightly threatened the love of physics/maths/coding is no longer spoken about. I get maybe they weren’t the same people, but I thought more people loved the process than it seems today. If anything these new developments make it even clearer for me what I love about this kind of work. I’m so happy it has made me not have to defend based on results, a razor sharp contrast that makes it so clear really why humans do things


> just deserts for the STEM people

it is a little ironic that after the "creative destruction" of industry after industry all of a sudden now it's unfair and we weep. I say this as a software dev with his neck on the line like everyon else.


It’s not necessarily their fault. Our economic system puts zero intrinsic value in humans, it only puts value on their output. It’s hard not to feel this type of way when it’s the only system you know.


Your loved ones have replaced you with more agreeable robots. Now no one cares whether you live or die.

Still disgusted?


Anyone who would replace me with a robot never loved me anyway. If that happened I would go and seek out the humans who really do care, and take solace in the fact that Christ will always love me


> Anyone who would replace me with a robot never loved me anyway.

Ever heard of sour grapes?

This is the lie you tell yourself to handle the situation.


Handle what situation? Why would people who love me ever replace me with a robot? It’s a random posed situation that no one discussed and doesn’t make any sense lol


> Why would people who love me ever replace me with a robot?

Why would one who loves someone, ever love another?


Huh??


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: