Also related: I'm using LLM assistance to write it, but I also have a test suite that proves it's working (I call it the "shotgun" suite: given a good image file, it first flips a random bit ("sniper"), then a random byte ("boltgun") and then a random 4096 byte segment which is the typical sector size ("shotgun"); each time it tries to validate the file by decoding it fully, and records what percentage of time it is detected at each scope, and it collects statistics about this over hundreds of times.)
The point of it is to detect things like corrupt data and bitrot... across 240+ different filetypes so far... since no other tool really exists yet in this space to do that.
Note that some formats, notably Apple's HEIC, are so data-dense that corruption only results in undetectable image corruption (well, a human would notice it, but an algorithm cannot!) So I have ANOTHER app coming to help with that which does detection AND repair (to a point). ;)
The CLI will be free and open-source, but I'm also writing a for-sale-in-future private-source GUI for it.
So is ADHD also to blame for "being addicted" to driving instead of walking?
What about using a sewing machine instead of hand-sewing?
Washing machines instead of hand-washing? (Some people still swear by air-drying instead of using a dryer, but there aren't that many "hand-washing is just better" holdouts, even if it might be true!)
Note that in all of these cases, you ALWAYS grin when you first use the more automated thing after having done the manual thing, and you ALWAYS lose something by going the faster/less-laborious route. If people are simply hyperfocusing on what is lost when you lean on LLM for coding, then they're simply going to miss the train (yet another invention that superseded walking and horseback-riding, with its own set of tradeoffs!)
We all know a walk is good on its own terms even if a car is faster, but if your goal is to get from point A to B in less than a certain amount of time, sometimes only a car will do. Hand-washing probably is less wear-and-tear on the clothes and lets you focus on dirty spots. Air-drying leads to fresher-smelling clothes that don't shrink. And hand-coding leads to a more curated solution than an LLM ever could... All of these at a comparatively extreme extra time or labor cost.
I was giving OP an answer to their question, as to why the "instant gratification" loop from AI is triggered by some people more than others. It's not about the grin, it's about the "not being in control, and not being able to stop". And if it's only the grin - yeah, hyperfocus is also something that neurodiverse brains have.
Not sure what triggered your reply specifically, but I think it is worth stating that there is nothing bad about it, as long as it doesn't become an issue. Different brains work differently. It's just a fact we should accept.
it is my second choice next to Zig and does have a lot of cool features, for sure.
The nice thing is that all these languages feature easy C interop so you can use a C FFI as the interface between them if you want to experiment with, for example, writing a module in Nim
that’s not what the benchmarks say about Go, and based on multiple reports, Rust does not scale well into large codebases, which eventually become brittle and very difficult to change
Zig is a return to “no magical effects,” except with reasonable safety
I would be very surprised to see a large Rust codebase being harder to maintain than a large Zig codebase. The former makes it much easier to maintain invariants at scale.
Well, you could go ask Richard Feldman, who I believe cited that reason to rewrite the nascent Roc language from being implemented in Rust to Zig, or anyone else who is moving from Rust to anything else. I've seen multiple people at this point complain about the scaling issue with Rust; the larger the codebase, the more you end up fighting the compiler before anything will actually build.
Note that it doesn't matter if the compiler is correct about its claims; if the language doesn't actively discourage patterns that produce this outcome at scale, then the language does not scale, end of story.
The trend is basically either linear or exponential: as more LOC of Rust are added, the greater the percent of total time you spend fighting the compiler to get a successful build, especially in a team context (which is exactly what gets you to >1M LOC). Solo devs can contain the whole design in their minds and may not run into this issue as much; the problem specifically occurs on teams where the mental model MUST be fractured by necessity, and this results in "distributed knowledge of magic" that ends up constantly breaking.
Perhaps this explains WHY there aren't that many Rust projects done by more than 1 developer that approach that many LOC.
Unless you enforce those macros somehow in a team setting, someone's going to forget to use them, and then you're still stuck with the original problem.
By the time C++ and Java were as old as Rust is today there were thousands of programs that over 1MLOC that had been maintained for at least five years. Rust is a rather old language, yet I doubt there are even hundreds of Rust programs over 1MLOC.
These reports are smoking crack. Rust scales gloriously well into large codebases, and it especially shines when it comes to making major refactorings. Please don't bother speaking about things that you don't understand.
You are entirely right here, you're also incredibly rude. Please don't bother replying when the only thing you're actually doing is being condescending and spreading negativity
Rudeness is perfectly acceptable when it comes to preventing the spread of blithe and thoughtless disinformation. I have no obligation to be polite to people who speak authoritatively on topics they know nothing about. I recommend you spend less energy on trying to defend clueless people by policing the tone of the people educating them, unless you think that polite ignorance is more societally valuable than brusque truth.
Could you please not sermonize or act like a demanding customer? We don't, and can't ever, see everything that's posted here, and even if we could it's not appropriate for moderators to adjudicate on the correctness of any claim. It’s by cultivating discussions between different people with different perspectives that we illuminate topics here. Obviously you have deep expertise on those topic. Great! Please educate people rather than berating them.
This is only a place anyone wants to participate on because we have guidelines and others make the effort to observe them. You've been here long enough to know that. Please don't trash what you seem to have found value in for so long. We don't need you to be "effusively pleasant" or erudite, just respectful.
For the price of all this righteousness you could have provided a reference. Some reference. So that curious bystanders like me can learn from the exchange.
It's difficult but where there's a will there's a way. I know plenty of parents who find time to get exercise in. And even if you don't hit ~600 minutes in a week, any amount of exercise is beneficial.
Go for a run pushing your kids in the stroller (even more cardiovascular benefit than just running by itself tbh). Do a bunch of squats at home while cradling your toddler (it becomes funtime for them, like they're on a mini rollercoaster ride). Take your kids for a hike, whether they're tiny and need to be brought along in a baby carrier or they can walk by themselves.
Basically, you can make it happen if you really want it to happen.
Side benefit: Your kids grow up seeing you build habits that keep you healthy long-term. Eventually, they get involved and that helps them learn self-care skills.
Plus, going for a walk/run in the stroller with Dad has to be developmentally healthier than staring at a tablet on the couch.
> Cool, now combine this with being a parent of young kids in a 2-income family without any other assistance.
For anyone literally in this situation: start small and consistent. Your goal is not to pencil in 10 hours a week of cardio. Instead, try to do 30 seconds of the same calisthenics exercise with your child before work/school consistently for 6 months. Perhaps pushups.
Over time you'll find the 30 seconds grows because you want it to. You might learn that warming up with jumping jacks helps you do pushups more comfortably. You might watch videos with your child about pushup variations and incorporate them into your routine together. Perhaps invest a few $$ into small equipment to support activities you're already doing, like pushup handles. Or maybe an over-the-door pullup bar.
Your routine won't be "optimal" in the 600 minutes sense, but a suboptimal routine that you do consistently is infinitely better for you than an ideal routine you don't, and it can expand/contract based on your needs.
I have two kids and recently I started cycling to work. I can get maybe half the new recommended number on a good week. That apparently translates to a 20% reduction.
Upon reading the article:
> The average age was 57 years and 56% were female and 96% were white.
My take is that all this study says is that's kind of late to try to tackle this problem in one's 50s. That being said it's nice to know that I could maybe get a 30% reduction if I were to start spitting my lungs out at this age doing 10h of intense cardio.
"Moderate exercise" is not a very high bar. Chores and playing with your kids probably count. There's a good chance you're already getting the required amount.
I frequently see couples who have a baby buggy with big wheels that allows jogging. Or a trailer for the bike. Or a backpack where you can put a baby on top.
I wonder why this gets downvoted. Nowadays people are aware of what they sacrifice economically and physically when they have kids. It changes the incentives.
Cool, let me know when you have a rational counterargument then, some of us have gotten fed up with Rust (especially at scale) and are very much enjoying Zig (which has no magic, which turns out to be a huge advantage at scale)
"No borrow checker" id not a reason to switch to Zig, unless you have a reason that borrow checker is limiting you from developing, hence the "I don't like this attitude". Just give the reason, not the "solution"
Not to mention we're nitpicking over something that an LLM wrote.
https://validate.pics
Also related: I'm using LLM assistance to write it, but I also have a test suite that proves it's working (I call it the "shotgun" suite: given a good image file, it first flips a random bit ("sniper"), then a random byte ("boltgun") and then a random 4096 byte segment which is the typical sector size ("shotgun"); each time it tries to validate the file by decoding it fully, and records what percentage of time it is detected at each scope, and it collects statistics about this over hundreds of times.)
The point of it is to detect things like corrupt data and bitrot... across 240+ different filetypes so far... since no other tool really exists yet in this space to do that.
Note that some formats, notably Apple's HEIC, are so data-dense that corruption only results in undetectable image corruption (well, a human would notice it, but an algorithm cannot!) So I have ANOTHER app coming to help with that which does detection AND repair (to a point). ;)
The CLI will be free and open-source, but I'm also writing a for-sale-in-future private-source GUI for it.
reply