> Think of constexpr evaluation as taking place "in the compiler’s imagination."
This is a great line.
constexpr and std::execution seem like neat ideas, maybe I'll give them a shot if I build an AI harness around the compiler so it doesn't make me feel like a hopeless idiot for trying new things.
I'd recommend you'd give D a try. It manages to have a bunch of the cool features C++ has, while still largely feeling like working in C with some of the cruft fixed.
D's equivalent to "constexpr" is "compile time function evaluation". i.e. in any context where it only makes sense to run code at compile time, it will do so. This makes it trivial to do some pretty complex things at compile time. I put together an example that shows creating static arrays, dynamic arrays, and a dynamic array with a partial fibbonaci sequence all at compile time[0].
The problem isn't so much that you feel like an idiot, at least at the time, but that you may think you're a genius and yet actually what you wrote was nonsense and the C++ compiler was under no obligation to tell you about that, indeed in many cases it's forbidden from doing so.
The standard does require that if work was done at compile time the compiler is supposed to tell you if that was nonsense but (a) actually C++ is so complicated your compiler likely has many bugs in this respect and (b) you probably aren't sure the compiler did the work you expected at compile time, knowing all the excuses requires considerable expertise.
I think it's a good idea for specialists / ICs to peek up from their work every now and then to understand how it fits into overall technical operations and the business as a whole.
Other than that... I think the managerial class is used to telling people what to do, so they have an outsized impact on "public opinion." They probably see technical work converging on agent orchestration as validation of their skills and perspective.
Management is challenging to do well and it has value, but I think viewing IC work through this lens is pure hype. Good ICs achieve relatively constant velocity throughout a project. The idea of throwing that away so they can herd digital cats for spikey output is just not a great trade to blanket apply to the whole industry.
In strength training circles there's question of "what are you lifting for?"
For many people the root answer is insecurity. There's nothing inherently wrong with this (you would do a lot worse as an outlet) but you ought to be honest about what lengths you're willing to go to in achieving the appearance of strength since your goal isn't strength itself. Poor form, injury from cutting corners, steroids; these are all temptations that the guy hefting concrete buckets alone in his garage won't face.
I think the programmers that write code for the joy of creation and problem-solving won't have much trouble holding onto their expertise. The ones that were never that way, or that had it burned out of them, are the ones in danger.
Another comment in this thread points out that the people having trouble are the ones that previously used to copy & paste stack overflow without understanding it.
I was late to the mechanical keyboard party. It felt like everyone else was already bored with nice switches and had moved on to fancy lights, bespoke keys, exotic materials, custom firmware, swanky ergonomics, bluetooth.
I just wanted the model T of keyboards. Black, wired, hefty, basic. FILCO delivered. I have such a soft spot for products like that. Understated but reliable companions.
~ 1 GB/sec seems about right for a long time. I can't imagine the basic files I work with everyday getting much more storage-dense than they are in 2026.
I remember my friend Peter, in 1999, on campus networking with 100 Mbit internet saying: I think this will be enough for many years to come. And he was kinda right — 100 Mbit is still "almost good enough" 27 years later for internet access.
I see this take a lot, that education serves the economy and therefore bold changes are needed to curriculum to keep pace with the changing economy. Yes, the needs of the economy shape the incentives the state places on education, but the bureaucrats aren't personally doing the educating. Many teachers have no alternate employment history and the economy does not especially value teachers; I would argue it is inevitable that teachers would decouple the meaning of their work from serving the economy.
But I think this is a good thing.
Yes, the goal of shop class was manufacturing competency, but it was probably taught by someone that extolled craftsmanship and attention-to-detail rather than drilling efficiency. A hobbyist wood-worker, not a retired factory foreman. The former approach would clearly have been more transferrable and less brittle.
So I think instilling adaptability is already pretty well baked-in to how most teachers automatically push students towards higher-level skills and meaning instead of tightly coupling to policy mandates.
TFA doesn't compare the performance of the new adapters with the older ones.
Does anyone know if the old bulky ones will hit 10G speeds on the same hardware?
I assume I can get a few old TB2 models and adapters on the cheap and they'll run cool enough and stable enough for constant 1G internet and occasional 10G intranet
In the US the purpose of the portal and all the typing and record-keeping is insurance justification and liability.
This is probably not the reassurance anyone wanted to hear if they were worried about crap transcriptions leading to crap care.
This is my absolute least favorite category of AI innovations: people patting themselves on the back for becoming more efficient in their inefficiency.
Is it not contradictory to value isolation but also to peek outward from it to access information? Surely reading books is some admission that there is value in experiencing the perspectives of others, albeit a one-sided experience.
I don't think reclusiveness is a moral failing. I don't think we owe society participation. But I do think that hermithood forgoes unbounded unforeseen possibilities for a known, bounded experience. I'd call this "the safe bet is not necessarily the best bet" argument against isolationism and towards social/collaborative open-mindedness.
This is a great line.
constexpr and std::execution seem like neat ideas, maybe I'll give them a shot if I build an AI harness around the compiler so it doesn't make me feel like a hopeless idiot for trying new things.
reply