have been using linux ever since i got my first personal computer.
our customers all run linux in production too, so it's very easy and natural to develop and test the software in its usual environment (although i wish my laptop had eight times the ram to match).
doesn't the same argument apply to ordinal dates? i see some people on hn also using longnow-style five-digit years, but i really can't see the point.
did the crossing of the rhine take place in 00406, 0406, or 406? what extra information do the two former styles convey?
also, what about the year 100000?
we are somehow doing just fine without leading zeroes for other quantities.
there is an argument to be made about e.g. iso8601 datetime formats that need to be lexicographically sortable; but i don't see any of the longnow fans using anything like those.
That's supporting my view. You might want it, you might not. It's marginal, and now it's cheap.
> look at your competition
LLM does this for you
> this isn't how llm products are marketed
It certainly is. Something like ChatGPT is marketed as a low-risk chat partner, most certainly not pretending to give you medical or legal advice. Talk to it like your buddy, you get buddy responses. Your buddy who has read a few law books but doesn't pretend to be a lawyer.
yes! like any craft, this works only if you keep practising it.
various implementations of k, written in this style (with iterative improvements), have been in constant development for decades getting very good use out of these macros.
indeed. with how good and cheap/free decompilers have gotten over the years my preferred way to read abstraction-happy c++ and rust code is to compile it with optimisations and debug symbols and then read the decompiler output.
reply