On the subject of Data-oriented design, it's mostly just the default way of thinking about software in most contexts. The DoD movement is not so much building on predecessors as it is ignoring predecessors who tell us to use OOP and "clean code" for everything.

LLVM is the part of Zig that breaks the most, it's the slowest part of the compiler by leaps and bounds, and takes the most time of the core team to fix the constant breakages it introduces. I'm glad it exists obviously, to some extent, but I wouldn't praise it for much more than its widespread appeal and ease of "adding another pass" compared to GCC and having more of a company-friendly license. It could have been designed a lot better and could be managed very differently and we'd see better results.

GPUI - I bet it's great. I guess I just tend to dislike phrasing like "stand on the shoulders of giants" because I tend to think the best thing hasn't been built yet. "Real engineering has never been tried!" I agree though that an AI port of a Rust library to Zig is probably not what any of us consider the holy grail of engineering.

In short, I think Zig and TigerBeetle and the Handmade Ethos exist not primarily because others paved the way, but because others went astray. Andrew Kelley used to argue with people online about how cross-compilation should be easy for systems languages and got hit by the excuse parade every time. Eventually he decided to quit his day job and solve it himself. Is that standing on the shoulders of giants? I don't think so. Yes, he has technically picked up where others left off, but he's picking up on abject failures and fixing them.

Now there is good engineering within LLVM and Clang, and good developers have done good work on it. I'm not saying everyone who worked on it is stupid or did bad work. However, there are glaring issues at a macro level and organizational level that individual contributors can't fix.

I want to zoom in on this:

"I am the intersection of so many unliked groups whose minds I've come to understand. If you were to use bayesian inference to compute the probability that I'm a good person, it would underflow a double. In practice, this just means I'm a curious person who hasn't had much to fear, since I've never had much to lose. If the day should ever come when society chooses to accept me, then the negative attention I've received will be viewed for what it really was, and then people will be able to safely examine my lifelong track record of kindness and conspicuous public service. All of the people I've talked to in my life will be influenced by my example and then stand a better chance of flourishing thanks to an increased interest in understanding."

I don't know your life, but I think it's more than possible that it's not merely a coincidence that you're at the intersection of so many unliked groups.

My brother once sent me a picture of a furry wearing a swastika armband asking if it's a real thing. My first reaction was a giant "WTF?!". My second thought was, you know, on some level, I gotta respect the hustle.

Someone really thought, "How can I be as revolting as possible to everyone? I can't LARP as a nazi, because then nazis would like me. Becoming a furry isn't enough either, because then furries would like me. But if I can stand at the intersection of all causes of disgust aimed at our fellow beings, then I will have proved my case."

I think the point of this line of thinking is different for different people, but the motivation could be a) because you want the world to hate you as you hate yourself b) you want to embody the negative underbelly of humanity to be a mirror so society or individuals within it can see their true nature. You want to have stones casted at you to prove that the rest of us are, in fact, the type of people who cast stones. Or c) it's just funny in some depraved way, "for the lulz" as they say. But, I assume you're already way past the point of laughing at the ridiculousness of this tired dance. You're a middle-aged adult who is struggling.

Well I, for one, won't cast a stone your way. I genuinely don't hate you at all. I admire your boldness and tenacity. "Donate so I can buy a private jet" is gold. I didn't really appreciate the mania or hyper-fixation roller coaster the article took me on, but I just found it unfortunate because I don't think this is the best way of thinking you could employ.

If at all possible, I think you should just try to be a "normal person" and think that that's an okay thing to be. By "normal", I mean not putting yourself in the crossfire. I still think you can and always will be technically extraordinary, and I don't think that's contradictory. You merely stop seeking rejection.

It seems to me, even as divisive as you may be, there have been many earnest attempts to integrate you into regular society, give you a super high paying job, and bring you into a context where you can innovate and push humanity forward. Why not just let that happen? Why not de-politicize just a little bit?

People will hate me for saying this or think I've licked too many frogs (I've never not been sober btw), but I have come to see a lot of political posturing as more arbitrary than not. I still know people have different visions for the world, and ideological differences that matter at a macro level, but to me, what really matters in life is looking other human beings in the eyes and having a connection to them. Sitting inside, alone, typing on a keyboard or phone, is anti-social, and it is against the nature of a human being.

I'm not telling you to give all of it up. But hopefully I've evoked at least one thought that encourages you to walk a path with a better outcome. You don't deserve to suffer your whole life, waiting for the world to accept you. I am sorry to hear about the tax situation and people who really have targeted you. I genuinely care and hope you find peace and healing on the inside. And stop reading internet comments.

Also, let's stop with the "vector length agnostic" types being the sole option for SVE extensions. I'd rather write an optimized routine for a 16-byte machine I'm targeting and be able to upgrade it in 5 years than have "agnostic" code that wants to pretend like it would work amazingly on all platforms, but the machine I optimized it for is theoretical. I'm fine with recompiling my code, I do it every day. If I have an algorithm that's truly vector length agnostic, I can make the vector length a constant in my code that can change based on the compile target.

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/113422

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/172857

Some commenters have remarked they only heard of Zig because of Bun, therefore this is bad for Zig. Not so. In my opinion, there has always been a mismatch. I say with no ill will that a divorce is likely better for both parties. I genuinely believe Bun will be better software once fully converted to Rust.

Given your examples, I think you'd have fewer issues if you were working with unsigned integers exclusively. Although I'm curious about what other code you were referencing with this: "But seeing how each change both made the code easier to reason about and more correct, I couldn’t deny the evidence."

With regards to modulo, in Zig if you try to use it with a signed integer it will tell you to specify whether you want `@mod` or `@rem` semantics. In my case, I'd almost never write `x % 2`, I'd write `x & 1`. I do use unsigned division but I'd pretty much never write code that would emit the `div` instruction.

I'm not saying you're wrong though! Everyone has a different mind. If you attain higher correctness and understandability through using signed integers, that's great. I'm just saying I'm in the opposite camp.

Not to mention that compiler backends are missing tons of optimizations even on mainstream targets on real hardware, I just don't think WASM makes sense economically. They should have just picked RISC-V and called it a day.

Don't train your AI on that

It might, but that would be an incredibly awesome problem to have, wouldn't it? If we really had the infinite innovation printer, I'd hope we'd have a lot more fun at that point.

By "believer" versus "doubter" I mainly meant I see it as more than a just a next-word-predictor. But the religious language is probably appropriate nonetheless.

I'm not saying, "I used to be an atheist, but then I realized that doesn't explain anything! So glad I'm not as dumb now!"

When I wrote that I hope we use it for good things, I was just putting a hopeful thought out there, not necessarily trying to make realistic predictions. It's more than likely people will do bad things with AI. But it's actually not set in stone yet, it's not guaranteed that it has to go one way. I'm hopeful it works out.