Proper reasoning is always needed if you want a guarantee.

You formally verify your regexes? Doubtful.

Does that imply anything at all in LLMs’ favour?

Yes it suggest lower cognitive load.

Great, but I wouldn’t be shouting from the rooftops how Wayland has created a better experience for users just yet.

Ok I can see you haven’t actually come across any complex regexes yet…

(Which is probably a good thing tbh - if you’re writing complex regexes you’re doing it wrong.)

I work in RISC-V CPU development and I’d say 5-10 years is about right for when we’ll see usable RISC-V desktop class machines.

There isn’t really any RVA22 hardware you’d really want to run a desktop on anyway, so it’s a very logical decision. RVA23 is a much more sensible base - it requires Vector and Hypervisor.

This is stupid pedantry. By that logic literally nothing is complex because everything is made up of simple parts.

Damn there are so many AI critics who have clearly not seriously tried it. It’s like the smartphone naysayers of 2007 but much much worse.

You don’t have to. You can read it.

Regexes aren’t hard to write, their logic is quite simple.

He did say complex regex. A complex regex is not simple.

Why? That is a great use for AI. I’m guessing you are imagining that people are just blindly asking for unit tests and not even reading the results? Obviously don’t do that.

I don’t think that’s true. In fact most people say the opposite - AI doesn’t help junior devs because they can’t recognise when it’s bullshitting. I don’t really believe that either - that’s just ego talking. I expect it helps people of all experience levels fairly equally, but only with tasks that are relatively simple. It’s not like senior engineers never do those though.

It definitely is… But it’s possible to be the most rigorous study and also not really prove anything. Proving this sort of stuff is ridiculously hard and expensive. We don’t have proofs for even the most obvious things in programming, like that comments and good variable naming help comprehension. Sometimes studies even find the opposite.

Did they ever explain the highly suss Chinese links? I’ve used this a bit and it worked well but I’m still not sure I fully trust it.

Google tried to do that with Dart, and failed. In fairness Dart 1 was much worse than Dart 2… So maybe that was a good thing because there’s no way they’d have been able to improve Dart as much as they have if it was part of the web.

For dates there finally is something better anyway: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Temporal

Ha this is even worse than I could have imagined!

The article said it pretty well:

if your answer to any perceived failing in a person is “just try harder”, you are either woefully inexperienced or a just a dick

That applies to writing impossibly comprehensive unit tests too.

Though really for a filesystem they should really do silicon-style verification (which we’re calling Deterministic System Testing now).

Yeah… This doesn’t sound promising. Refusing to acknowledge the obvious fact that AI and hostile mods have driven away 99% (not an exaggeration!) of their audience. A visual makeover before the change anything. Trying to sell the Q/A database for AI despite the fact that you can download it for free. They even talk up their job advertising product that they inexplicably cancelled a few years ago (btw I found levels.fyi has a pretty good job database if anyone is looking).

If it were me I would:

1. Use AI to improve question quality - if people post obviously bad questions get AI to improve it via a conversation.
2. Make it waaaaay harder to close questions. Like, require 10 votes and allow the asker to reopen it for free once.
3. Make it so questions can’t go below 0 points.
4. Make it impossible to close as duplicate. You should be able to mark questions as possible duplicates (and the asker can say “yes it is”) but if they don’t it should stay open.
5. Maybe even make it impossible to close questions at all. What actual purpose does it solve apart from driving people away?

Apart from the AI that’s all stuff they should have done 10 years ago.

It’s probably too late anyway.

Those two things are related.

Difficult to argue with someone who is obviously right when they’ve actually proven they were right.