There’s a lot of chatter in the media that software developers will soon lose their jobs to AI. I don’t buy it. It is not the end of programming. It is the end of programming as we know it today. That is not new. The first programmers connected physical circuits to perform each calculation. They were succeeded by programmers writing machine instructions as binary code to be input one bit at a time
CUPID: for joyful coding
What started as lighthearted iconoclasm, poking at the bear of SOLID, has developed into something more concrete and tangible. If I do not think the SOLID principles are useful these days, then what would I replace them with? Can any set of principles hold for all software? What do we even mean by principles? I believe that there are properties or characteristics of software that make it a joy to
A Vision for Future Low-Level Languages I’ve had this vision in my head for quite a while now on what code written in a low-level language could look like. This vision has shaped my design of Ante and although I’ve alluded to it before, I’ve never explicitly stated it until now. Now, what makes a language low-level is a bit contentious. I’m using it here to describe a group of languages I have no
Automated tests are important. Without them, programmers waste a huge amount of time manually checking and fixing their code. Unfortunately, many automated tests also waste a huge amount of time. The easy, obvious way to write tests is to make broad tests that are automated versions of manual tests. But they’re flaky and slow. Folks in the know use mocks and spies (I say “mocks” for short in this
Lately I’ve gotten heavily back into making stuff, and it’s mostly because of LLMs. I thought that I liked programming, but it turned out that what I like was making things, and programming was just one way to do that. Since LLMs have become good at programming, I’ve been using them to make stuff nonstop, and it’s very exciting that we’re at the beginning of yet another entirely unexplored frontie
Clojure's deadly sin
This article is about laziness in Clojure. It is intended to be a comprehensive and objective (however possible) critique of lazy sequences as a feature. In no way do I want this to be a judgment of the decision to make Clojure lazy. Clojure the language is by no means formulaic; creating it involved making a plethora of impactful choices. We can judge by Clojure's longevity that the total package
j次のブックマーク
k前のブックマーク
lあとで読む
eコメント一覧を開く
oページを開く
The End of Programming as We Know It
A Vision for Future Low-Level Languages
James Shore: Testing Without Mocks: A Pattern Language
How I write software with LLMs - Stavros' Stuff