You might have people that want to drive taxis but they would still have to get used to the streets, how the app works etc. etc. which can significantly degrade service quality.

It doesn't matter unless you are using constructors or modifying some variables in the initialization expression anyway.

find more books from additional readings sections of books you end up liking.

Don’t use LLM for learning as it is useless compared to searching amazon or doing general web search to find books.

You can recursively learn anything you need by finding books about needed subjects.

Immigrants doing a very large portion of tech work can't be just because they get paid less

There is no language other than C and C++ that is mature enough that you can actually discard the implicit runtime stuff and still be able to code in the language. C++ is too complex in my opinion so I only get to use C as a minimal language.

Even if you look at a language like Zig. You have implicit error trace printing stuff that is inaccurate when using optimized builds, you get a very bad fuzz implementation that doesn't work properly, you get comptime reflection which will be insane in the hands of the people that are writing rust now. Also a bunch of features you would want to use to discard the runtime are not documented/stable.

You can't even use Odin without libc as far as I can understand.

Hare doesn't even have inline asm.

Contrast with using C with clang/gcc where you can do '-nostdinc' '-nostdlib', then implement memcpy etc. and you can do w/e you want after that.

Rust as a nother example is trash for doing low level projects without pulling the 10billion lines of code that comes with using rust like libc/stdlib/binding libaries etc. etc.

You can use libraries that other people built in Rust but doing it yourself takes much more time than doing it in a language like C or Zig.

Another thing is, C is easy to implement. Implementing Rust/C++/Zig or any of the other languages is basically impossible in comparison.

Also I found that C is the only language that you can go into a very big project and open a random file and roughly understand what is going on. This is not possible in any of these other laguages other than Zig and I suspect it will get very bad in Zig when(if) the lower skill level people that are currently writing Rust start moving to writing Zig.

Regardless of the other aspects, this is a joke in any context I have been in since I started working in this field about 9 years ago.

Even as pure logic, you know they do what you want it to do only after you chose them. You can’t possibly be trying every option to the fullest capacity of your application.

You also converge on the “Jarred” aspect and the guy that made the decision in the title post has the opposite sentiment

You can open whatsapp web or a pdf or most other websites and just scroll. The difference is massive.

I was changing between them and searching for comparisons online. This ended up being a massive amount of lost time because all of those choices became crystal clear when I actually roughly understood what these libraries were doing.

And actually learning the thing didn’t take as much time as writing code for comparison and discarding it or doing dead-end web searches.

Recently had a similar experience trying to learn dwarf parsing from LLMs or searching for existing code. Then I just realised that reading the spec is by far the most efficient way to understand it.

I am guessing same principle applies to text rendering because I got the same vibe when watching Raph Levien talk about it on some video.

Searching online to read some “industry-standard” “tried and true” etc. Comments is a big sign that it might be better read some actual source about the topic imo. It doesn’t even take that much time to read a textbook even.

You can do a couple days to a week of reading to understand the fundamentals once and then you will actually know what you are doing.

It is not proper to choose things on “battle tested” or other meaningless words

Compiler optimizing even the code around the simd code based on the semantics of arithmetic or other things sounds silly after writing some of this kind of code

You can see the same approach is taken by Trump and other people.

“You have TDS!! He is actually doing good. He doesn’t follow rules because the system is rigged etc.”

These arguments border on religion because it is predicated on you believing their ignorant point of view in the first place.

Engineering and science is built on rigor and empirical evidence, it is not built by scammers/businessman/ignorant-people/politicians because that is just not how it works

So all operations should be function calls imo. There is not much point in having operators

This is more like an ignorant business man's view on technology and engineering. It is not about failing or winning in the bussiness sense but this business man point of view is just despicable from the point of view of an engineer who is trained to do a "good job".

The size of the dataset should be under 3GB in parquet from what I understand. [0]

So it did 3*8/4.94 = 4.85 Gbps which is underwhelming in terms of network performance.

It is still not possible to make any conclusions since we don’t know how specifically they encode it or how they are running the query.

I just mean this writing is useless in terms of engineering perspective, also what it says about http doesn’t make sense

[0] - https://clickhouse.com/docs/getting-started/example-datasets...

This is wrong, HTTP is bad for transferring large amount of data and it is also bad for doing streaming.

It is bad for large amount of data because you have timeout issues on some clients, you hit request/response size limits etc.

It is obviously bad for streaming as there is no concept of streaming in it.

It is comical to go the path of least resistance so lazy people can put a reverse proxy on top of it. And then say HTTP is the only relevant way to do it in 2026.

The benchmark doesn't seem to mean much as TCP can max out 50GB/s on a single thread. Pretty sure it can do more than that even. So you could be using anything that isn't terrible and you should get max performance out of this.

Also the protocol is something else from the format. For example if you are transferring mp4 over ftp and http you can compare that.

If you are transferring different things over different protocols then the comparison means nothing.

The benchmark graph for bulk transfer should show more granularity so it is possible to understand how much of the % of the hardware limit it is reaching. Similar to how BLAS GEMM routines are benchmarked based on the % of theoretical max flops of the hardware.

> 60 million rows (76 GB in CSV format!)

This reads a bit disingenuous.

It is dissappointing to see this instead of something like PostgreSQL protocol with support for a columnar format.