As a big fan of WordPerfect on my first DOS machine (286 clone), I agree. I respect authors like GRRM for sticking with WordStar, but whenever I get nostalgic and wondering about WordPerfect in DosBox, I remember I use emacs and typst. All the good things about WordPerfect, but vastly superior.
I keep seeing ads for expensive "writerdecks" that run between $500 and $1200 and have a bare-minimum OS that is intended for distraction-free writing. I keep wondering how these are any better than an old laptop, FreeDOS, and WordPerfect 5.2, except as Veblen goods.
LOL. In 2007, I did a side-by-side comparison of SVN, Mercurial and git with my codebase at work (~700k LOC). I know hg got faster eventually, but I still can't believe people say "hg should have won the DVCS war" with a straight face. It was orders of magnitude slower in my tests. Like, 20 minutes to commit large xml files (yeah, I know, but that's where we were). Not just a few ms slower, unbearably slow for several things.
I liked its features better, but chose git, and that was the correct decision.
This isn't an apology or a deflection, but different VCSes strike different trade-offs in terms of speed per workload. The mercurial storage model is comparable to video encoding in that it has a somewhat equivalent of "key frames" and alternates differential and full revisions¹. This makes workloads like bisecting or jumping to long-distance commits more efficient, at the expense of the time to create new commits.
For your use-case, mercurial has had a `largefiles`² extension for a very long time (long before git-lfs).
> I liked its features better, but chose git, and that was the correct decision.
Anyhow, my personal story with git is that I bought into the hype and social effects without really challenging my assumptions ("it must be the best, everyone says so"), until I got very fed-up with its obnoxious UI, and someone on IRC told me "ehh, give hg a shot". Nowadays, I mostly interact with git repos through hg-git and jj.
I feel bad for people who reject Windows 11 on moral grounds. They'll likely fall behind, while also having to live in a world increasingly built around something they see as immoral.
I remember sitting in a senior seminar class in 1989 full of CS students. We were solemnly informed by a very earnest IBM employee that we would regret having majored in computer science because IBM's CASE tools were going to kill job market. That aged like milk.
Will something come along some day that will actually drastically reduce the need for programmers/developers/software engineers? Maybe. Are we there yet? My LLM experience makes me seriously doubt it.
I attended a CASE tools conference in the 1990s, which of course included a vendor exhibition. The vendors all had demos of creating an application using their tool. At multiple vendor stands I asked to see the code generated by their CASE tool. Invariably, the salespeople would start waffling about how the code was no longer important (sound familiar?), how you didn't need to examine the engine of a car while driving it, and so on. It had a very "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" feel to it. It convinced me that I didn't need to pay any attention to CASE tools, and history confirmed that.
Nah, that came later as the canonical example, with Ruby on Rails (which also somewhat suffered from a "programmers are irrelevant now" meme). Rails would make todo apps and twitter clones too cheap to meter (pretty much all Rails tutorials involved making one or the other in like an hour, pretty much entirely in the DSL).
In practice, Rails, while quite nice, was not the productivity revolution that it was originally touted as. These things never are.
Funnily enough todo lists didn’t really become a popular app category until the early 2000s. CASE tools in particular were very focused on enterprise applications.
I remember sitting in my first year university classes, in 2003, and we were given quite the opposite outlook - don't limit ourselves to what we consider to be 'the industry' as it is right now, because most of the jobs we'll have in our careers don't yet exist.
LOL... I was in the same position. I graduated from high school in 88 and got my first job a couple of years later, working at a small insurance company running IBM AS/400. I had just gotten my job as an operator with a dream of becoming a programmer, and here comes IBM with its CASE tool. I truly thought the world was going to end.
A couple of years later, Microsoft came out with Visual Basic, and I thought, OMG, I'm toast. Secretaries are going to be writing code. I was a developer by this time, writing code in FoxPro and getting into PowerBuilder.
All this to say, "I've been in IT for many years, and companies promise a lot but rarely deliver completely on their promises." Do programmers and others in the tech field need to adapt? Yes. Is AI going to be disruptive to some extent? Yes. Are all jobs going away? No.
A good LLM is a great tool for those who know what they are doing. They can follow some very tedious code paths (if thread 1 is doing this, while thread 4 while thread 2...). However they also can write some really really bad code. They sometimes propose bad solutions/architecture. You need someone knowledge to guide them and keep them on a good path.
Back in the 80's there were ads for tools to "dinosaurs" who everyone looked to when their 4GL language failed to solve the problem.
If you also mean make it so Congress doesn't have a $4T slush fund to buy favors and influence every year, then I'm on board. If you think reducing the paltry sums spent on campaign contributions is going to take the money out of politics, you're bad at math.
The best way to get money out of politics is to get politics out of money. The government playing an outsized role in the economy is precisely what draws money into the political process in the first place.
This. If you're the trade group for a billion dollar industry you'd be not doing your job if you didn't buy both sides of the isle. With how powerful the government is you can't afford not to.
Weird way to agree with someone, end with an insult just because you're not sure whether or not you should take the least charitable interpretation. You would think the rest of my post would have been a clue.
Moving past that, yes we are in agreement. In fact you bring up an excellent point, which is that political parties themselves make corrupt use of campaign finance lawlessness to get in the way of their own voters and rig their own primary systems. None of these entities, whether the DNC or a right wing corporate interest group should be able to buy and sell American elections.
Individual campaign contributions are a non issue, also because regular people are capped at relatively low and long established FEC limits these various slush funds/pacs are designed to circumvent. As you said, the math is clear. I'm confident if this issue were ever put straightly to the American people, the result would be overwhelmingly in favor of campaign finance reform. The real issue isn't anyone's ability to do math, but what you hinted at earlier. The political parties themselves enjoy and benefit from this corruption. Therefore they are incentivized to ensure such a vote never takes place.
The current moment offers an opportunity to overpower such entrenched powers that be, if we can collectively move beyond partisan finger pointing that will only alienate those fellow Americans we need to agree with us to make such a broad based reform possible.
I lost my "Clear Creek Bike Book" in the 1980's but eventually Sheldon made me not miss it at all.
It's not as comprehensive, and more corporate than Sheldon's site, but I currently love Park Tool's youtube channel (https://www.youtube.com/@parktool). They shamelessly mention their tools, but they frequently give alternatives like, you can get this park tool for pushing your disc brake pads back into place, or you can just use a plastic tire tool.
reply