ChatGPT/Codex can do it, Claude can do it, why can't Gemini?

And no, I don't mean going through Antigravity, and personally I'm wary about LLMs having unsupervised access on my computer without explicit policy, so I really think Google is putting the cart before the horse here.

So, you end up with a language that looks like Python, but doesn't behave like Python, and companies that adopt Mojo early with the promise of Python compatibility may find themselves running into edge cases with difficult to trace compiler error messages that would be nearly impossible to debug, especially with the addition of Zig style `comptime` as their metaprogramming model.

However, I think that there is a philosophical portion to that context as well: "What problem is this feature supposed to help with? How would you verify that passing unit tests means that the code is working as intended? Does this feature need to exist at all?" LLMs usually need these to be provided to them explicitly since they are not good at inferring the correct intent compared to humans, otherwise they just make something that looks right but doesn't work right.

Personally, I think learning specific implementation of algorithms probably should take less of a priority compared to fundamental architectural understanding why these things are done in the first place: data structure, automata theory, interpreter/compiler methodologies, etc. You still have to learn how to code, even if you won't be doing a lot of coding directly yourself, because the fastest way to learn how to evaluate code is by writing code yourself.

I think the other significant issue with the NPM ecosystem that makes it bad in particular is NPM's dependency management is genuinely the worst out of any package manager because of phantom dependency is the default: you can be using a package without ever knowing that you are using it because it is imported implicitly, and the JS ecosystem dependency is so weird that taking down a small package that that a major project depends on cripples the entire JS ecosystem, as shown in left-pad, and launching a cyberattack via npm can be as easy as putting malicious code in any small package that large, popular packages depend on and watch it propagate. This is not hypothetical, it has been done, repeatedly in fact, over the years.

TS is a good programming language, however NPM is a security nightmare, and somehow the collective reaction of everyone depends on the JS/TS ecosystem seems like a shrug and "oh well, what can you do".

Shai Hulud/Mini Shai Hulud happened because of this obvious glaring hole in the system, they even had the script to download an official copy of Bun to spread itself in case the targeted machine has hardened their security. So, the real question is not what other security features does a package manager need, it should be: why does a package manager have the ability to let package authors run arbitrary scripts silently on other people's computer in the first place?

It doesn't really matter how good your security system is if the front door is left wide open for anyone to walk through.

If you are interested, I've built an open source project specifically to solve this issue in game AI and it resolves the switch/if-else ladders pretty cleanly. It's C#, so it should work for .NET version of Godot as well, and I have a couple of sample MonoGame project on there to demonstrate that it works: HSFM + utility AI. Works not just for games, but weirdly for LLM orchestration too.

https://github.com/yuechen-li-dev/Dominatus

Try it out, I don't want people to think I'm here just to self-promote, but I think this could be the thing that helps you slay the switch statement giants once and for all. If it helps you for your work, hey, powers to you.

The case for them gets even worse for heavy manufacturing industry/trades, since you have to think about safety and liability now: what if these smart glasses fall into the machines and cause an accident? Can these smartglasses can withstand the environmental conditions in the workshop?

Lower transfer rate means less shielding is needed for the cable as well as the overmold, and enables longer and more flexible cables, as extra shielding stiffens the cables.

If I'm being blunt, if you are in the game industry, you probably have nothing to worry about in terms of LLM coding replacing you, because the tooling used in the gaming industry is as unfriendly to LLM coding as it gets: Heavily visual scripting based, extremely reflection heavy, and the code, Unreal C++ and Unity C#, looks like regular C++/C#, but doesn't behave like normal C++/C#. LLMs simply cannot reason about hidden implicit states effectively, so if the code looks right but doesn't act right, LLMs will simply get confused and start hallucinating.

I would also be expecting Wifi 7 support as well as unified memory considering they ordered custom AMD silicon. Understandable that it is a rather conservative design for their first generation though.

The actual PID controllers ,however, are actually really finicky to tune, and hard to reason about directly. Good for simple linear systems, but it falls apart as real life systems tend to be complex and nonlinear.

First, why make another programming language? This came out of my general frustration with working with MATLAB and Python during grad school as well as at work. I'm a mechanical engineer; I write Python scripts for my own use semi-regularly. My issue with Python is that while writing easy, debugging Python code I wrote is hard once the code gets big. Sharing my Python code to colleagues is very difficult as most of them are less technical on coding than I am, so asking them to setup a full Python env just to run a script is out of the question.

Then, the Two-Language Problem for scientific computing: write the prototype code in Python/MATLAB and rewrite the performance sensitive code in C++/Rust when needed. The problem is that C++ and Rust are not very easy to learn and converting from a dynamically typed language like Python to a strict, statically typed language like Rust is not easy, especially for people who are not software engineers.

The name Oct is a reference to GNU Octave and started as my concept of what Octave should have been, and the name stuck. About 75k lines of Oct code are in the repo across experiments, libraries, and examples. Pretty much all of it is written by Claude/Codex, my role is only to prevent drift/hallucinations.

Features, in no particular order:

- Function first, statically typed, both interpreted and compiled: Oct code compiles to a Go binary via MIR codegen, runs on anything that Go runs at Go speed, and inherits Go's absurd compile speed, which means that a JIT is mostly unnecessary. - The entire Go ecosystem is available for Oct if you write a wrapper around it: Oct's `IO.Xlsx` library is `excelize`, Oct's builtin plot is `gonum/plot`, Oct's benchmark profiling is pprof, Oct's C interop is CGo. - Boring syntax, easy to learn. If you know Rust/Go/C#/Swift, learning Oct would take a few hours at most. Vice versa, if you learn Oct, then you are halfway to knowing how to write Rust already; - Octest, xUnit.NET style testing framework with `[Fact]/[Theory]` and various Asserts. - Foundational SI unit built into the language and enforced by typechecker: you can't add Int and Int together. Units also propagate. ```oct fn StiffnessForce(K: Matrix>, u: Vector>) -> Vectorm/s^2>> { return K @ u // Matrix> @ Vector> → Vectorm/s^2>> } ``` - You can't ignore errors, Oct is exception free and `null`/`nil`-free, all errors must be handled explicitly: `?` for propagation, `!` for unwrap, or fallible `match`. - Arrays and vector/matrix are separate but related concepts, with vectors/matrices explicitly defined as Rank 1 and 2 tensors, and Einstein notation for tensors is built into the language. ```oct let c = a[i, k] * b[k, j] ``` - Octomata, Oct's own built in control system runtime, using explicit finite state machines and utility scoring as primitives for control systems.

```oct package Main

flow DoorControl(openCmd: Bool, closeCmd: Bool, blocked: Bool) -> String { state Closed { when { case openCmd and blocked == false -> goto Opening else -> return "closed" } }

    state Opening {
        when {
            case blocked -> goto Closed
            case closeCmd -> goto Closing
            else -> return "opening"
        }
    }

    state Closing { return "closing" }

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48563191

Points: 4

# Comments: 0

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47182260

Points: 1

# Comments: 0