That surprised me, too. TypeScript is a very poorly-congealed ("designed" seems a bit strong) language.

Of the two popular scripting languages - python and ruby - python probably makes more sense as you can compile into actual binaries if you want.

For speed and parallel processing, which I'd assume they'd want, they'd be better off with Tcl or Erlang, both of which are much much better suited to this sort of work.

Then they should have used Tcl.

Well, that does it. You are tossed out of the Democrat Party. Repeat after me:

There is a secret cabal of Jeff Bezos/Elon Musk/Donald Trump clones that conspire to hold you down.

Got an alternate link that doesn't divert me to ads for cheap watches and flea-bag condo units?

... The Great Unloading.

You can't really expect rich people to sell into a market that isn't buying.

You assume that a standards document exists and is also sufficiently specific for all scenarios. Other than some very fundamental IETF stuff have I seen a standards document that pretty much covers the scope specifically. Even more severely, "specifications" for an internal project have been so traditionally bad, a whole methodology cropped up basically saying that getting specifications that specifically correct is a waste of time because during the coding it will turn out to not be workable.

Yes, it can write hundreds of tests, but if the same mediocre engine that can't code it right is also generating tests, the tests will be mediocre. Leading to bizarre things like a test case to make sure '1234' comes back as 'abcd' and the function just always returns the fixed string 'abcd' and passes the test because it decided to make a test and pass it instead of trying to implement the logic. I have seen people almost superstitiously add to a prompt "and test everything to make sure it's correct" and declare "that'll fix the problems". The superstitious prompting is a big problem in my mind, that people think they add a magic phrase and suddenly the LLM won't make the mistakes LLMs tend to make. I have seen people take an LLM at their word when the LLM "promises" to not make a specific mistake, and then confounded the first time they hit the LLM making the mistake anyway. "It specifically said it wouldn't do that!", it doesn't understand promises, the thing just will generate the 'consistent' followup to a demand for a promise which is text indicating making the promise.

Take the experiment where they took Opus 4.6 and made it produce a C compiler. To do so, the guy at Anthropic said point blank he had to invest a great deal of effort in a test harness, that the process needed an already working gcc to use as a reference on top of that, and specified the end game as a bootable, compiled kernel. Even then he had to intervene to fix it and it couldn't do the whole thing and when people reviewed the published result, it failed to compile other valid code and managed to compile things that shouldn't have been compilable. This is Anthropic with their best model doing a silly stunt to create a knock off of an existing open source project with full access to said project and source code and *still* it being a lot of human work for mediocre output.

Yes, it has utility, but there's a lot of people overestimating capabilities and underestimating risks and it's hard for the non-technical decision makers to tell the difference until much further down the line. Mileage varies greatly depending on the nature of the task at hand as to whether LLM is barely useful at all or it can credibly almost generate the whole thing.

It's bad for your health if you care about the work. It might be less bad if you just don't give a damn how crappy the output is or if it's at all useful or not.

This is so true, so true.

And it's not even US specific. In the wake of the Ukraine war, German parliament voted to give itself 100 billion of additional taxpayer money (i.e. debt) to spend on defense. Recently a report came out of all the money spent so far, 90% did not go towards the intended purpose.

Why any of the jokers in charge of our governments are still not in jail baffles me more and more every year. Oh yes, it's because they make the rules, sorry, my bad.

That's what campaign donations get you, if they are large enough.

This is why congress occasionally bullies the big tech companies. We all think they might want to have some regulation or to punish them. Oh sweetie... they're saying "nice company you have there... would be a shame if something happened to it..."

The best time to leave github was when the evil empire bought it. The second best time is now.

Seriously. Anyone who thought MS wouldn't fuck it up in the same way they fuck up everything they touch can't be helped. It's Microsoft for crying out loud.

This. Constructive thinking is like searching a problem space using good heuristics. To quickly recognize and reject the blind paths and pursue the productive ones. Practice is what produces and re-enforces these heuristics.

You've got to do repeated design, build, test loops to get good. Problem with AI to date: It's up to you to "spot the hallucinations". So that learning loop is split between the AI and the developer. Nobody "gets good".

Poster seen at IBM:

THINK
or THWIM

Funny. I thought they all ended in BSOD.

https://www.ibm.com/history/th...
"An ad hoc lecture [from 1915] from IBMâ(TM)s future CEO spawned a slogan to guide the company through a century and beyond"

https://humancenteredlearning....
"And we must study through reading, listening, discussing, observing and thinking. We must not neglect any one of those ways of study. The trouble with most of us is that we fall down on the latter -- thinking -- because it's hard work for people to think. And, as Dr. Nicholas Murray Butler said recently, 'all of the problems of the world could be settled easily if men were only willing to think.' (Thomas Watson, IBM)"

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/...
"All the problems of the world could be settled easily if men were only willing to think. The trouble is that men very often resort to all sorts of devices in order not to think, because thinking is such hard work. (Nicholas Murray Butler, often misattributed to Thomas J. Watson)"

So, yeah, echoing your point, make programmers do the hardest parts of their job all the time -- especially reviewing code from inconsistent-to-put-it-politely AI contributors -- and no wonder they feel "fried".

Does AI support for programming need to be this way? I might hope not, but we are also mainly hearing about AI used within a short-term-profit-maximizing hyper-competitive corporate social context. Like I say in my sig: "The biggest challenge of the 21st century is the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity."

Browsers can be installed by a user. Nothing stopping your kid from downloading his own copy and configuring it as he sees fit. Put that function in the kernel and it's more difficult (but not impossible) to circumvent.