Human led programming is a bug, not a feature. You don’t program your kids, your intern, to get things done.
It’s an encoding tool so we could take advantage of fast digital circuits.
I grew up with abacus, and I had to learn rules such as “三下五除二” to effectively “program” the abacus.
Now with AI that can write code at super human level, I am willing to bet that the programming as we know of, the objects, the if/then, the for loop, will quickly evolve into something new.
Exciting times!
And don’t be the 1960s guy who believed that abacus could still compete with digital computer. Abacus is not backed by the Moores law. Similarly, programming language as we know today is not backed by differential optimization.
We lost a titan of programming languages, programming methodology, software engineering and hardware design. Niklaus Wirth passed away on the first of January. We mourn a pioneer, colleague, mentor and friend.
As an experiment, we're posting a short TED Talk directly here on X. If you like, please spread the word, and more will follow! This is the brilliant @LuisvonAhn showing how worthy content like Duolingo can compete online.
Jessica Kerr from HoneyComb is presenting “I can write the code, but getting something done is another matter” at the St. Louis JUG tonight @jessitron#stljug. https://t.co/LtJPsGxVqM
RIP Bram Moolenar.
I'm grateful for Bram's work on Vim and for the impact it has had on the world. Thank you for everything, Bram!
Message from his family: https://t.co/oFdphPxz0v
#vim#bram
“Making Sense of Other People’s Code” is the title of Scott Wierschem presentation at #stljug this evening. Keep Calm and Refactor!
https://t.co/CwonIEXScB
@arungupta For a while, the guidance for getting off of Java 8 is to migrate up to Java 11. Now that Java 17 is also in the picture, what is the new guidance? To Java 11 and then Java 17, or directly to Java 17?
@mattdmoss If we are seeking solutions in all real numbers, things get complicated quickly. For example, in the special case where x = y, (3.287, 3.287) is an approximate solution. If we seek complex number solutions, we are probably into Mandelbrot set kind of complexity. /3 (of 3)
@mattdmoss Since x^y < x^y + y^x = 100, if y >= 7, x will have to be <= 1, which leads us to (1, 99). For y = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, the equation can be inspected, leading to (99, 1), (6, 2), and (2, 6). No other non-negative integer solutions exist. /2