When yarn/react/next.js/amplify breaks in some new and idiotic way, Claude is helpful more often than not. Why spend hours googling and sifting through github/stack overflow/etc when Claude can tell me what option to tweak to fix it in a fraction of the time?

Boring, tedious shit that doesn’t require brainpower, just time, when fixing whatever comes out of the LLM is less annoying than doing it myself.

How is that relevant to “That’s on you for using Java”?

It sounds like you already know how to do embedded programming, at least at the hobby level. For someone who’s new to that, Arduino IDE is the easiest learning curve I know of. As far as which boards to use, I have no specific feelings which is why I said Arduino or equivalent.

You need to understand how code actually works. If you’ve only worked with highly abstracted languages like Python, Ruby, JavaScript, etc then you should probably start by learning lower level languages like C or C++. Or maybe Rust and Go but they’re kind of low level and abstracted at the same time. If you already know C/C++ then buy yourself an Arduino (or equivalent) and start screwing around. If you’re in school and interested in this as a career, take some electrical engineering or digital circuit design classes.

It is possible to sign a flatpak, but yeah distributors need to actually do that and flathub should require published flatpaks to be signed.

VSCode is the first development environment I’ve used that doesn’t make me feel like this. It’s not perfect but the base application is rock solid and the full DE experience is the more reliable than any other DE I’ve used.

P.S. I specifically said DE for those people who say VSCode isn’t an IDE. Personally I don’t see the point in differentiating.

P.P.S. Sublime is not a DE in my opinion. It’s an excellent text editor with syntax highlighting. The plugins were an afterthought and it was never intended to provide the full experience. Granted I haven’t used it in years.

There was this one time where I took down the accounting department by accidentally DDOSing the SQL server. MS Dynamics is such a piece of garbage that it will crash if the database takes more than a minute to respond.

I thought you were saying to literally use def main(): pass, that’s why I was confused

What is the point of this?

Saying “front end is not proper software engineering” is bullshit but at the same time if you hire someone to write code and then ask them to write CSS I can understand being frustrated.

There’s no difference between SSA and ASS in that context so it’s pointless to punish a student for that

I’m not saying it doesn’t happen. This thread started because I said I’ve never understood why people talk like tar is some indecipherable black magic. Common tasks are easy and there’s a man page for everything else.

Literally the only time I’ve ever run into that is when I was trying to manipulate the path it extracted to. In 99% of cases I’m doing tf, xf, or cf plus flags for the compression type, etc, and those differences are irrelevant.

I almost never create a tarball, so I have to look up the syntax for that. Which is as simple as man tar. But as far as extracting it almost couldn’t be easier, tar xf <tarball> and call it a day. Or if you want to list the contents without extracting, tar tf <tarball>. Unless you’re using an ancient version of tar, it will detect and handle whatever compression format you’re using without you having to remember if you need z or J or whatever.

I’ve never understood why people are so intimidated by tar

I thoroughly agree, you should always have CI tools to ensure it builds, passes tests, and meets whatever formatting and/or linting standards the team sets. I was specifically responding to “Rust makes it harder for a ‘contributor’ to sneak in LLM-generated crap”. If I get a contribution from an untrusted party, I will start with the assumption that it’s utter garbage, buggy, broken, and malicious and review it until I’m convinced it’s not. Not because I assume the dev is bad but because it’s safer to assume the code is garbage. If I get a contribution from a trusted party (e.g. a member of the dev team/employee/whatever) I will review the code carefully though not with as much paranoia. I don’t particularly care if my teammates are using LLMs, but if they’re submitting code they don’t understand that’s a great way to get ejected from the “trusted contributors” group, and if they’re an employee it’s a good way to get fired if they keep doing it after being warned not to.

In what situation are you accepting contributions that you haven’t vetted thoroughly enough to detect crap code? I’ve seen a lot of crap from developers that’s as bad or worse than LLM generated crap so there’s no way I’ll ever accept contributions to an important system without thoroughly vetting them unless they’re from one of a very few number of people I trust implicitly.

I’ve had success with Claude, but there’s always a layer of separation. I ask it to do something, read what it produced, and decide if it’s garbage or not. And rewrite or discard as necessary. Though counting by LOC mainly I’ve used it for writing tests.

I didn’t say never copy and paste. I’m saying when you push a commit you should understand what all the LOC in that commit do (not counting vendored dependencies). If you don’t understand how something works, like crypto (not sure what Hamilton or Euler refers to in this context), ideally you would use a library. If you can’t, you should still understand the code sufficiently well to be able to explain how it implements the underlying algorithm. For example if you’re writing a CRC function you should be able to explain how your function implements the CRC operations, even if you don’t have a clue why those operations work.