Programming thread

[Kosher Dill]

It seems to parse the request and cobbles together some results that sorta approach a solution, except it never quite gets there. And more disturbingly, the AI never gives up and says "welp, I can't answer your question". It just keeps throwing flawed solutions at the author.

Credit where credit's due, inventing an electronic pajeet is an impressive accomplishment, considering it took evolution hundreds of years to achieve the same result.

 

[Rusty Metal Skull Gun]

python is perl 2, people use it to duct tape together massive shitballs of logic that they don't care about enough to (c)hisel into stone
only real difference from perl is that it's slower

I was sceptical about this, but it appears to be true. Python can be JITted - how the fuck is it so slow that it gets beaten by Perl, which can't?

I post this article a lot, but this is a really good read about someone trying to use AI to code. Basically, the AI gets close to the solution. It seems to parse the request and cobbles together some results that sorta approach a solution, except it never quite gets there. And more disturbingly, the AI never gives up and says "welp, I can't answer your question". It just keeps throwing flawed solutions at the author.

AI is a bullshit generator, which is useful for some things and useless for others. Programming is not the sort of job that you can bullshit (at least, not for very long).

 

[Creative Username]

I was sceptical about this, but it appears to be true. Python can be JITted - how the fuck is it so slow that it gets beaten by Perl, which can't?

perl has lovecraftian black magic inside of it and has a lot of high-level operators that are implemented in fast c
probably also less dynamic oopshit

 

[306h4Ge5eJUJ]

I was sceptical about this, but it appears to be true. Python can be JITted - how the fuck is it so slow that it gets beaten by Perl, which can't?

The reference implementation CPython intentionally focuses on simplicity and ease of maintenance, probably because Python was conceived as a teaching language. As a result, it's slow as balls and the big useful libraries are written as C extensions. This marries those libraries to CPython's C extension API (and other fun decisions like a godawful GC based on reference counting), which prevents competing implementation from taking off - after all, the libraries are the reason to use Python.

 

[SpergRush]

None of the languages mentioned here are low level, "low level" is below the CPU architecture portability level of abstraction. Nice try, kiddo.

Typical pedantic user of rust, a gay and pedantic language, who read a wikipedia article made by another gay and pedantic person and thought "low level means machine code"

Wrong. Low level also means any language you could write a performant driver in. Really it means C or something that can replace C. Which is definitely not Rust, no matter how many wet dreams rust troons have about it.

The compiler elides these checks if it can (as in if you checked for it, they are removed), you can also call .get_unchecked if you're really really superstitious about it. You're not going to get any meaningful perf gains from skipping the bounds checks that you were already doing anyways.

This something you can only understand if you look at the assembly code underneath which most people haven't done.

There is a whole "Bounds Checking Cookbook" where you have to learn shit patterns just to have the language come close to the performance stuff it brags about. Its like watching my microagressions. Learning that is not going to happen.

Just look at some of these patterns:

https://github.com/Shnatsel/bounds-check-cookbook/

Why would anyone want to have to learn those patterns and write that? Yuck!

Sometimes faggots make great things like rust, what's your point?

Look at this profile pic of the maintainer of the "Bounds Check Cookbook". This is a typical rust maintainer. Sorry but im not working with anyone who has Simba as a profile pic

 

[ihatetroons]

Typical pedantic user of rust, a gay and pedantic language, who read a wikipedia article made by another gay and pedantic person and thought "low level means machine code"

Wrong. Low level also means any language you could write a performant driver in. Really it means C or something that can replace C. Which is definitely not Rust, no matter how many wet dreams rust troons have about it.




There is a whole "Bounds Checking Cookbook" where you have to learn shit patterns just to have the language come close to the performance stuff it brags about. Its like watching my microagressions. Learning that is not going to happen.

Just look at some of these patterns:

https://github.com/Shnatsel/bounds-check-cookbook/

Why would anyone want to have to learn those patterns and write that? Yuck!



Look at this profile pic of the maintainer of the "Bounds Check Cookbook". This is a typical rust maintainer. Sorry but im not working with anyone who has Simba as a profile pic

View attachment 6232217

Uhm sweaty, rust is the only memory safe programming language in the world and if you don't use it, you are literally commiting violence.

 

[Quence]

AI sperg warning:

Unless you are truly a niggerlicious developer AI will never reach the level to replace us. Ask it to write anything remotely complex or where it doesn't have enough data in it's training set on and it just falls over and/or lies to you.


Honestly I think AI will get worse as it develops as training data becomes hallucinated shit previous AI models have spit out.

The whole "AI will replace us" is basically the new "we will live in the metaverse"

I do agree however we truly have left the golden age of programming when new hires don't understand what a pointer is or suggest we replace our GDI apps with some gay webshit framework

Quality and Superstar coders will probably be safe from AI replacement for some years to come. But lower level and less talented coders will likely be replaced. And that means most Pajeets should end up being culled from the industry which could usher in a sort of second golden generation where there is far less sh*t code and many fewer mistakes being made. Plus, the quality coders won’t have to deal with and try to fix the never ending tsunami of Pajeet-level code.

 

[Creative Username]

Quality and Superstar coders will probably be safe from AI replacement for some years to come. But lower level and less talented coders will likely be replaced. And that means most Pajeets should end up being culled from the industry which could usher in a sort of second golden generation where there is far less sh*t code and many fewer mistakes being made. Plus, the quality coders won’t have to deal with and try to fix the never ending tsunami of Pajeet-level code.

in the best case scenario, you just REDEEMED the pajeets and did the needful with mechanical pajeets which will produce a never-ending tsunami of unholy shit code just like the biological pajeets did

also do you think code never has to be maintained if a mechanical pajeet made it, or do you just expect people to redo the entire process of pajeetotron activation every time they need to change a small thing in the lovecraftian mechapajeet shitting street, using the good sar of steel as a sort of weird english to javascript compiler that always does something creatively unexpected each time it is run

 

[Quence]

in the best case scenario, you just REDEEMED the pajeets and did the needful with mechanical pajeets which will produce a never-ending tsunami of unholy shit code just like the biological pajeets did

also do you think code never has to be maintained if a mechanical pajeet made it, or do you just expect people to redo the entire process of pajeetotron activation every time they need to change a small thing in the lovecraftian mechapajeet shitting street, using the good sar of steel as a sort of weird english to javascript compiler that always does something creatively unexpected each time it is run

As long as the AI is trained to never mimic Pajeet code and only learns from the dulcet coding of quality and superstar programmers, all will be well. But this will be for standard and common programming solutions. Coding that requires vision, imagination, deep thinking, and a creative spark will remain firmly within the human world…..for an undetermined amount of time.

 

[Kosher Dill]

Just look at some of these patterns:

https://github.com/Shnatsel/bounds-check-cookbook/
Why would anyone want to have to learn those patterns and write that? Yuck!

This is wildly Islamic. Even 400-pound C whales don't typically do this level of "read the compiler's mind" in their code, and certainly not for simple loops. How on earth would you maintain this? How would you hand it off to someone who doesn't already know all these voodoo tricks, or even recognize that they're tricks? (And God forbid, what if someone ever writes a second compiler?)

I mean, there will always be those places where you really do have to pull out the wizard tricks, in whatever language, but this is absurd.

 

[Creative Username]

As long as the AI is trained to never mimic Pajeet code and only learns from the dulcet coding of quality and superstar programmers, all will be well. But this will be for standard and common programming solutions. Coding that requires vision, imagination, deep thinking, and a creative spark will remain firmly within the human world…..for an undetermined amount of time.

the way llms work, you have to train them on absolutely everything you can get your grubby hands on so they can produce the exact average output for any given input
that means you will need to train it on mountains of pajeet code anyway to even get it working half-right
and of course you can then finetune it on good code to make it produce a convincing facsimile of that, but even if you do that it will still do pajeet shit anyway

why?

llms are designed to take a pattern and extrapolate it according to the statistics of the average pattern from the training set, so it's mind-bogglingly amazing that it can do basic programming, but if you ask it to do anything complicated, it will most likely start making wrong but statistically likely (and convincing) patterns that are interpreted by the computer as horrible pajeet code, because that's exactly how pajeets work too (but they do it by manually copying and pasting stackoverflow)

 

[306h4Ge5eJUJ]

This is wildly Islamic. Even 400-pound C whales don't typically do this level of "read the compiler's mind" in their code, and certainly not for simple loops. How on earth would you maintain this? How would you hand it off to someone who doesn't already know all these voodoo tricks, or even recognize that they're tricks? (And God forbid, what if someone ever writes a second compiler?)

I mean, there will always be those places where you really do have to pull out the wizard tricks, in whatever language, but this is absurd.

I don't understand why Common Lisp's local declarations are nowhere to be found in other languages. If I want to disable bounds checks in one particular section of the code, I can just wrap it in (locally (declare (optimize (safety 0))) ...), get the benefits, and keep safety high everywhere else. This is 90s tech and so blatantly superior to opt-in checks and compiler rain dances it's not even funny.

 

[Jarry Seinfelt]

wrt AI: I’ve known enough people who did a bootcamp or audited two CS classes at some local college, completely failed to get even the most basic React cattle job, then seethed at me that I’m gonna be replaced by ChatGPT in the next six months, that I’m convinced it will never happen. Those same people are niggerlicious enough that they refuse to pick up a book or do any learning outside of what their bootcamp taught them, and then they act surprised and indignant that Google and Facebook aren’t fighting over them. I’ve also worked with degree holders that don’t know what a Makefile is, but unlike bootcamp sheep they don’t refuse to learn.

 

[Quence]

the way llms work, you have to train them on absolutely everything you can get your grubby hands on so they can produce the exact average output for any given input
that means you will need to train it on mountains of pajeet code anyway to even get it working half-right
and of course you can then finetune it on good code to make it produce a convincing facsimile of that, but even if you do that it will still do pajeet shit anyway

why?

llms are designed to take a pattern and extrapolate it according to the statistics of the average pattern from the training set, so it's mind-bogglingly amazing that it can do basic programming, but if you ask it to do anything complicated, it will most likely start making wrong but statistically likely (and convincing) patterns that are interpreted by the computer as horrible pajeet code, because that's exactly how pajeets work too (but they do it by manually copying and pasting stackoverflow)

But perhaps AI models will graduate from llms to the predicted Large World Models and develop more human-like perception and cognition. Could there also be a leap in the accuracy and quality of AI coding? Could low quality pajeet coding be permanently eradicated from a world begging for the insanity to stop?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbes...large-language-models-to-large-world-models/#

 

[sneed weed 69]

wrt AI: I’ve known enough people who did a bootcamp or audited two CS classes at some local college, completely failed to get even the most basic React cattle job, then seethed at me that I’m gonna be replaced by ChatGPT in the next six months, that I’m convinced it will never happen. Those same people are niggerlicious enough that they refuse to pick up a book or do any learning outside of what their bootcamp taught them, and then they act surprised and indignant that Google and Facebook aren’t fighting over them. I’ve also worked with degree holders that don’t know what a Makefile is, but unlike bootcamp sheep they don’t refuse to learn.

AI will replace our jobs" is the most gay retarded midwit take ever and I can't stand it. AI tools do not understand context, they cannot adequately comb through an entire multi-million line code base and understand exactly why every choice was made the way it was. It's a niggerlicious jeet dev in a box that will trample all over your code while not understanding everything, rewriting it with whatever random shit it scraped off stackoverflow and hoping for the best. At least with a niggerlicious soy CS major you can try to explain to them why they're retarded, and any midwit who says "AI will replace us" is not capable enough to train their own models and configure weights to at least emulate a real Jeet. AI is great for quick one-off scripts, it's great for some basic SQL queries or regex, but the idea of throwing AI at something like a game engine or similarly complicated code base is kind of horrifying and retarded.

 

[Anti Snigger]

I'm realizing that CRTP is absurdly common and I wish more languages streamlined the use of it

 

[Kosher Dill]

If I want to disable bounds checks in one particular section of the code, I can just wrap it in (locally (declare (optimize (safety 0))) ...), get the benefits, and keep safety high everywhere else.

Rust has that too, the voodoo tricks are the way to avoid using the "unsafe" mode while still having the compiler guess that it can omit bounds checks on its own.
It seems to me that the costs of this vastly outweigh the benefits.

 

[Safir]

This reminds me, I had some (postgres) database index fuckery occur recently. I needed to select records within an interval of timestamps (indexed), then sort the selection by pk. Instead, it'd sort the whole table by pk then FILTER by timestamp (which is slow).
I made it do the needful by sorting by pk AND timestamp.
Wtf, you might say, pks are already unique, the second sorting parameter does nothing! Well it told the database to use the timestamp index. I hate computers.

 

[Jarry Seinfelt]

AI will replace our jobs" is the most gay retarded midwit take ever and I can't stand it. AI tools do not understand context, they cannot adequately comb through an entire multi-million line code base and understand exactly why every choice was made the way it was. It's a niggerlicious jeet dev in a box that will trample all over your code while not understanding everything, rewriting it with whatever random shit it scraped off stackoverflow and hoping for the best. At least with a niggerlicious soy CS major you can try to explain to them why they're retarded, and any midwit who says "AI will replace us" is not capable enough to train their own models and configure weights to at least emulate a real Jeet. AI is great for quick one-off scripts, it's great for some basic SQL queries or regex, but the idea of throwing AI at something like a game engine or similarly complicated code base is kind of horrifying and retarded.

When it does happen, and it's not cope and wishful thinking from internet commies who hate anyone that cares about anything or bootcamp fags, it's because some MBA in upper management got a hair up his ass about how much he's paying his devs and thinks a 'jeet farm or some "AI" powered product can reduce their spend without it impacting the quality of their software. That ends up being bullshit, so the code goes to shit, the product consequently declines, and actually competent developers need to come in and pull their asses out of the muck. It's gay but it's a cyclical thing that happens in business.

FWIW, what I've heard from managerial types that I trust, is the actual competent Indian devs cost nearly as much as hiring local software engineering talent. And you can't easily drive or fly out to New Delhi for face time with the Pajeet. I work remote, but if my manager ever needs to chat with me face-to-face we can both just drive to a starbucks halfway between our houses.

 

[DavidS877]

This reminds me, I had some (postgres) database index fuckery occur recently. I needed to select records within an interval of timestamps (indexed), then sort the selection by pk. Instead, it'd sort the whole table by pk then FILTER by timestamp (which is slow).
I made it do the needful by sorting by pk AND timestamp.
Wtf, you might say, pks are already unique, the second sorting parameter does nothing! Well it told the database to use the timestamp index. I hate computers.

Remember, Postgres is smarter than you.

It was always so much fun getting indexes setup exactly right so it would stop doing stuff like that.

Also, vacuum early, vacuum often so it gets the stats updated.