‹ BackHN Continuity

Thread

We Should Be Able to Change Our Languages

59 points · 36 comments · surprisetalk

  1. tombert · · focus · HN ↗
    At the risk of being a bit of a douchebag, it seems like nearly every tech opinion piece I read now boils down to "things used to be hard but they aren't anymore because LLMs can understand things faster than we can, so can ignore/change fundamentals!"

    I didn't really find the argument convincing the first time and I don't really find it convincing now.

    That said, with regards to macros, I actually do agree that the fear against them is broadly overblown. I have seen scary terrible horrifying macro soup in Clojure, but that has generally been outlier cases. Something like core.async abuses the hell out of macros, and despite that I think it very often increases readability and understanding of the language.

    1. smitty1e · · focus · HN ↗
      As long as GPS stays bullet proof, Navies are in good shape.

      It's going to be a hard come-to-Beevis moment if the magic signal goes away and people have to remember celestial navigation.

      Not sure you can even find a sextant on most vessels.

      So too these AI services.

      1. QuesnayJr · · focus · HN ↗
        The Navy was phasing out celestial navigation, but after some public outrage from retired naval officers they brought it back.
        1. manyatoms · · focus · HN ↗
          Does this mean using the star-tracking devices like what satellites have, or like a human paper/pen thing?
          1. obviouslynotme · · focus · HN ↗
            It should mean both. They need to learn how to do it by hand and then learn how to lean on a navigation system. If only GPS fails, then the celestial navigation program fallback runs without a hitch. If shit hits the fan, then they can break out the manual and remember how to do it by hand.
Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.