Yeah, but they are not being stressed enough or considered at a greater level. The same can be said with stuff such as Global Warming for instance, whereas every other company knows that stuff they're doing is terrible, but don't give a shit and we continue to follow as if nothing is going on. AI >right now< is not doing anything specifically dangerous, BUT people adding that "tool to their toolset" is not us, mere mortals but people who intend to use AI in crappier ways. Thinking about those things is not "shitting on anything new" but to think critically about stuff.
>Accelerate education at unprecedented levels (if we can figure out how to integrate LLMs into the education system).
More likely we'll replace poor people's teachers with ChatGPT and whoever has more cash affords actual teachers. This is so real that we're experiencing this >today<, in a different scale with private schools and distance learning in countries such as Brasil where there are projects to reduce schools and/or move some of them to use distance learning.
>However, it is a complete other thing to say 'we'll fix this with more inclusion, yep, that'll fix it', this is the pinnacle of doing the least amount of effort, just like a convincing leader that use anecdotes to sell their vision..its cheap.
It's amazing how the article present five points and y'all are obsessed over this one point (which concerns the removal of RMS and open up for more diversity & inclusion). But sure buddy, that's the issue.
TBF, it is not "this one point". It is the first point of an enumerated list of changes. Of course people will focus discussion on it, since it is intentionally presented as the most important one.
Essentially threats to folks up north. Down here (in Latin America) and other places such as the entirely of Asian and African countries, US has been a threat since it exists.
US is still moving it's pieces here in Brazil, Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador. Not to mention espionage on half of the world (thanks WikiLeaks)
Time has value. If the prospect isn't clear, the tradeoff of time to investigate is a waste. People are risk averse and want to understand the benefits the language was designed for relative to competing languages.
The sibling comment already says most of it, but the non-presence of a succinct comparison table is IMO a signal in itself that the language/project is a toy and not ready to be considered for production use.
I'm not sure I've seen such a thing for most languages, but maybe I'm used to just reading what a lang is about and mentally slotting it for certain things by myself. I bucket things by static/dynamic types, dominant paradigm, syntax style, GC/no GC, and stated goals, which include what it was designed for. Most of those are easy to discover.
Oh absolutely, and that makes sense if the language is being pitched to individuals. But as soon as you want to convince your boss to let you use it for a project, that executive summary level info is essential. They (rightfully) do not have the time to infer it or "play around", they need a clear "it's X but better because Y, Z."
No languages provide any such comparison that I'm aware of. Rust does not, Zig does not, C and C++ do not, JavaScript does not. Are all of these languages toys?
Ha, good call. IMO C, C++, and JavaScript are all kind of in that special case basket where there were significant domains in which you had to use them (JS for the browser, C for unistd.h, C++ for the Win32 API), so they didn't really have to compete with anything for long enough to become entrenched.
Zig, though, does very clearly lay out its pitch right on the homepage, and although it's maybe not a table of checkmarks, it's a series of pretty clear shots-across-the-bow at other languages, in particular C and C++.
Rust similarly has a "Why Rust" block above the fold on its homepage; it's not quite as terse as the Zig one, but it's clearly that same executive-level pitch.
Hare's homepage has: "Hare is a systems programming language designed to be simple, stable, and robust. Hare uses a static type system, manual memory management, and a minimal runtime. It is well-suited to writing operating systems, system tools, compilers, networking software, and other low-level, high performance tasks."
Maybe there's a case to be made here that these bald assertions are no different than what Zig and Rust claim about themselves. But I also think it's reasonable to have different expectations around this for a brand new project vs ones with years of track record and existing mindshare.
There's dozens of languages out there I haven't programmed in. If I were going to learn a new one, I'd have to base that decision on something beyond just vibes.
