The key difference is that compilers don’t fuck up, outside of the very rare compiler bug. LLMs do fuck up, quite often.

Copilot frequently produces results that need to be fixed. Compilers don’t do that. Anyone who uses copilot to generate code without understanding how that code works is a shit developer. The same is true of anyone who copies from stack overflow/etc without understanding what they’re copying.

I’d create my own macro or function for that. I have enough ADD that I cannot stand boring shit like that and I will almost immediately write a pile of code to avoid having to do boring crap like that, even with copilot.

Using git reset --keep would just make more work since I’ll have to throw away uncommitted changes anyways. Removing uncommitted changes is kind of the whole point, it is called ‘reset’ after all. If I want to preserve uncommitted changes, I’ll either stash them or commit them to a temporary branch. That has the added benefit of adding those changes to the reflog so if I screw up later I’ll be able to recover them.

If you’re using reset with uncommitted changes and you’re not intentionally throwing them away, you’re doing something wrong. git reset —hard means “fuck everything, set the state to X”. I only ever use it when I want to throw away the current state.

I have not and will not ever use AI generated code that I don’t thoroughly understand. If you properly understand the code you’re committing there shouldn’t be any damage. And beyond AI you should never commit code that you don’t properly understand unless it’s a throw away project.

I’ve run into that exact issue with copilot (deleting my tests). It is infuriating.

I don’t think I’d trust it to refactor code for me, not for anything important. I’d need to completely understand both the initial state and the result on a statement-by-statement level to be confident the result wasn’t secretly garbage and at that point I might as well write everything myself.

It’s not just about learning a language. Given two equivalent languages, writing a project using one or the other is always going to be less work and less of a maintenance burden than writing it using both. A competent manager will take that into account when deciding what tools to use. On top of that, learning a new language has a cost. Of course Rust and JavaScript are not equivalent, but which one is ‘better’ is highly subjective and dependent on how you measure ‘better’. So a manager needs to take that into account. But my fundamental point is that using two languages for a project adds overhead, and learning a language adds overhead, so unless cost (including time) is irrelevant, there must be a compelling reason to choose a dual-language solution* over a single-language solution, and to chose a solution that requires your devs to learn a new language over one that does not. Not to mention switching platforms has a massive cost if your project is already mature. Even if you’re creating a new project, if your team already knows JavaScript and doesn’t have any particular objection to Electron, there’s no compelling reason.

If there is a good reason to learn a language then people will.

Sure. Except in my experience interviewing candidates and from what I’ve seen online, there are a lot of developers out there who aren’t very good. I am not optimistic that the average developer will have an easy time learning a new language. If the “we” in “Is this the electron alternative we’ve been waiting for” is you and I, that’s not a problem. But if OP meant to suggest there will be a large-scale shift away from Electron, then the average developer is quite relevant.

*As someone else pointed out, Dioxus is designed with the intent that you’ll right the frontend in Rust, so it’s not exactly dual-language like I thought.

Ah, well that’s great for folks who already know or want to learn Rust

I seriously doubt that a dual-language platform is ever going to supplant Electron. Electron has the major advantage that the entire app is written in one language. And according to Stack Overflow’s 2023 developer survey, 66% of devs use JavaScript, 45% use Python, 43% use TypeScript, and 12% use Rust. More devs use Java, C#, C++, PHP, and C than Rust. So 2/3 of developers wouldn’t have to learn a new language to use Electron, and only a small fraction of the remainder knows Rust.

Sure, there are worse languages and environments to get stuck with. But I can avoid those jobs. And if I get hired as a SomeLang developer and they force me to work in Java or whatever, it’s time to dust off the resume.

I am aware of that, but Java is the most popular language that runs on the JVM. I don’t specifically dislike other JVM languages, though one of my issues is type erasure and that’s partially a limitation of the JVM.

Obviously OpenJDK is superior to dealing with Oracle’s bull. But even more superior (IMO) is simply not using Java. My life has been noticeably more pleasant since I started refusing to touch Java.

You consider calculating the hash of a few bytes to be heavy lifting?

just use await in an async function.

Sure, I’ll just put await and async everywhere. Oh wait, I can’t. A constructor can’t be async so now I need to restructure my code to use async factories instead of constructors. Wonderful…

async/await infecting all of my code, being unable to create a get myField() method that involves a hash calculation. It may be standard to do heavy lifting concurrently, but async hash functions are certainly not standard in any of the languages I’ve used (which is quite a few).

That seems like a good guess, I can see why async hashing could be useful. But it would be nice if there was an alternative API that was blocking so my code wouldn’t get infected with async/await all over the place…

“Flagged as spam”, “Publication Not Available”. I can’t see the article.

True, but if you read the article the point is clearly not about source code vs non-source configuration. There’s an implicit assumption that source code is something the developer will be modifying as time goes on, but the real point is, “Don’t make users merge changes.”

I think the author’s primary point is, “Merging changes sucks, don’t make your users do that,” with a corollary: if your program loads configuration from a directory that is only populated by the user, there’s nothing to merge and thus never any merge conflicts. Case in point: /etc/polkit-1/rules.d. I can add whatever rules files I want in there and they’re never going to conflict when I update. If PolKit makes breaking changes to the format, it will log errors somewhere and I can look at those errors, look at my rules, and figure out how to fix them. That’s a hell of a lot easier than merging conflicting changes to code/configuration.