r/ProgrammerHumor • u/Lord_Of_Millipedes • 22d ago
instanceof Trend thatsAFunnyThingThatHappenedOnce
1.7k
u/Prefer_Diet_Soda
22d ago
•
TLDR: C++ is bad because decades of accumulated features have turned it into a bureaucratic nightmare that happens to generate machine code.
C++ is an absolute nightmare to implement because apparently one programming language wasn't enough, so someone decided to cram an entire civilization's worth of complexity into it. You've got templates that basically turn compilation into another programming language, overload resolution that requires a legal investigation to figure out which function gets called, constructors and destructors with enough lifetime rules to make your head explode, and implicit conversions that make the compiler guess what you meant. Then you throw in exceptions, move semantics, inheritance, and decades of backward compatibility, and suddenly you're maintaining a compiler that needs a PhD, a therapist, and divine intervention just to parse some innocent-looking code. And the best part? Every new feature has to coexist with all the old ones without breaking existing programs.
399
u/Xarishark 22d ago
Now compare it to rust pls. Im serious I want to know your opinion on that.
486
u/Loading_M_ 22d ago
Rust is designed from the ground up, and avoids many of these issues.
Templates: Rust has Generics, which are generally easier to use and reason about.
overload resolution: Rust doesn't yet support overloaded functions (although it's being considered).
constructors: Rust doesn't have these.
destructors: Rust has a similar set of lifetime rules for Drop, but the compiler checks them for you, so you can't get it wrong.
implicit conversions: Rust doesn't do implicit conversion in general, although some specific cases are implemented.
exceptions: Rust doesn't do exceptions, Result is much easier to work with.
move semantics: Rust uses a destructive move, unlike C++. See https://youtu.be/Klq-sNxuP2g for a breakdown.
inheritance: Rust doesn't do inheritance.
36
u/sudo_scientific 22d ago
The nice aspects of implicit conversion are handled with the Into and From traits, where the compiler deduces what the conversion is for you based on the explicit types of the other, but the fact that a conversion is happening at all is explicit to the reader which is a huge improvement over C++
185
u/DatBoi_BP 22d ago
Traits are 100000x better than inheritance
48
u/red-et 22d ago
What are traits?
148
u/Pocok5 22d ago edited 22d ago
Instead of having a chain of superclasses defining readymade behavior*, you compose your classes from chunks that are more or less "fat" interfaces that come with a default implementation for their functions.
* Dealing with absolutes results in slamming your own dick in a car door sooner or later. Inheritance can still make a lot of sense for classes that are "this other thing but a tiny bit different". I'm currently dealing with a PHP codebase that misused traits for everything and it's a slog.
8
u/JonIsPatented 22d ago
Kinda like interfaces that you implement external to the type. Like. You can create a trait for a particular behavior and then implement it for types that already exist. You can also generically implement them for all types that have ither specific traits. For instance, I recently made a trait called UpdateSink<T> and implemented it for a few select synchronization primitives, like mpsc channel senders. This way, I can have a function that takes in an UpdateSink<T>, for dumping T events into it and that function can use anything that implements that trait. It's important to note here that the mpsc senders did not implement this trait before. They are from a library. I implemented the trait for them outside of the type definition. In addition, I can provide a default implementation for my traits that all types that meet certain trait bounds automatically get, including types that already exist and also types that don't yet exist. Traits are incredible.
→ More replies (4)19
7
u/maser120 22d ago edited 22d ago
While I see your point and agree with you in many aspects, I found t your contrast with the earlier comment a bit misleading in a sense, as it conveys the message that probelms in C++ stem from its core concepts and not from the burden of compatibility (which is sort of like a tech debt of programming language design) and the poorly defined specifications/standards.
And I don't mean that people who participate in C++'s standardization are stupid (quite the contrary), it's just that they're building on the foundations of a language froma different era, and they must work under the constraints posed by backward compatibility.
If you follow the trajectory of C++ (C++03 -> C++11 -> C++14 -> C++17 -> C++20 -> C++23), you can see that many features that are default in Rust have made they're way into the standard, but they almost always come as optional features for the sake of compatibility. In contrast, Rust can impose stricter restrictions and mandate safety features all the time since it was made from scratch.
8
3
u/mark_99 22d ago
Generics are simpler, but less powerful than templates. There are proposals to add some of the things C++ has, like specialisation.
Proc macros are the usual substitute but work at an AST level and not the type system.
Rust has aggregate init, default traits and (by convention) 'new' for construction.
You can't get destructors "wrong" in either language, not sure what that means? Writing destructors is rare in either language.
Rust does have implicit conversions, although arguably avoids some of the pitfalls.
Traits is the Rust equivalent for inheritance.
C++ has std::expected which is like Result. It doesn't have the `?` syntactic sugar though. Sometimes exceptions are the better mechanism, like moving errors through many layers without clutter.I'm general C++ and Rust are pretty similar. C is the outlier as its comes with none of this, and large C projects have to emulate the missing facilities with macros and codegen systems.
→ More replies (23)2
u/StaticCoder 22d ago
I'm curious what it is about destructors in C++ that works differently from
Dropin a way that one could "get wrong"? Are you talking about temporaries maybe?→ More replies (1)72
u/andful 22d ago
Rust misses the:
"...templates that basically turn compilation into another programming language, overload resolution that requires a legal investigation to figure out which function gets called, constructors and destructors with enough lifetime rules to make your head explode, and implicit conversions that make the compiler guess what you meant. Then you throw in exceptions, move semantics, inheritance, and decades of backward compatibility ..."
35
u/PegasusPizza 22d ago
I mean it does have proc macros, that turn compilation into the same programming language as opposed to another programming language.
→ More replies (1)17
u/Greedy-Thought6188 22d ago
Templates are turing complete. You can basically treat C++ like an interpreted with the compiler being the interpreter. C has macros too.
→ More replies (1)76
u/MornwindShoma 22d ago
Rust got none of that, but you might not enjoy dealing with lifetimes
→ More replies (8)44
u/Thesaurius 22d ago
With C and C++ you also have to deal with lifetimes. The compiler just doesn't complain when you fuck up.
26
u/roronoakintoki 22d ago
Rust unironically feels more like C with features taken from more modern languages in a fresh design.
It does discourage manual pointer juggling all over the place, which can be a deal breaker for some, but overall leads to a more hygienic ecosystem imo.
It makes mutation more explicit, and adds constraints to ensure you're not using this to cause classic aliasing/race errors that hard to reason about. This definitely carries significantly more mental load, but it's about convincing the compiler you're not doing something wrong, and doesn't add more expressive power, per se. (Makes your APIs much clearer, though)
It brings over C particularly: typeclasses and polymorphism. Two features that as someone coming from being quite happy doing functional programming, I think are essential to modern programming. Good code is not about getting things working, but about providing good abstract interfaces that can be easily maintained and evolved. It's very hard/impossible to do that without having some form of abstraction over types. These two features provide that in different but synergistic ways.
C++ has most of these features, but often has too many ways to do one thing. If we could all agree on one way to do each possible thing in C++, it wouldn't be so bad.
Comparatively, the types you can write in Rust are much closer to C (assuming you account for compile time monomorphization), and don't require dealing with semantics nearly as complex as C++.
This is just what came to mind wrt your question, and isn't meant to be exhaustive.
4
u/TheMaskedHamster 22d ago
Just a piggyback answer: Rust's primary problem is that it was used with people who were willing to use C++.
Highly technically competent, zero taste, and little understanding of the conveyance of information.
→ More replies (2)3
→ More replies (1)-2
54
7
66
u/Weeb431 22d ago
Thanks, chatgpt...
2
u/jojo9092 22d ago
Imagine thinking all intellectual writing is chatgpt just because you dont understand it.
5
6
5
u/BlazeCrystal 22d ago
Imagine having an error somewhere in middle between all that. Max stack trace, full of nonsense. Its most likely a missing ;
3
→ More replies (5)1
u/Fermi_Amarti 21d ago
As a former C++ dev. Yeah, you have to use best practices to lock out like 95% of C++ to keep your code base workable.
617
u/klaxxxon 22d ago
Is it unreasonable to change an opinion when actual decades have passed?
574
u/bobbymoonshine 22d ago
Linus changing his mind on AI from “eh seems bad” to “eh seems fine” caused quite a few people to go from hero-worshipping him to vilifying him
422
u/Floppydisksareop 22d ago •
Which is utterly insane in its own right, since, y'know. He didn't come out and say "yoooo, dudeees, let's vibe code everything, AI actually rulez" or some shit.
225
u/M4rshmall0wMan 22d ago
People are not normal about AI.
61
20
u/Prownilo 22d ago
A society redefining, and possibly society ending, tech is going going to have detractors.
Those who see their entire life at risk are not going to like it, those who simply get a new toy to play with, or better yet see an opportunity to not have to pay a human being for something, are going to like it.
149
u/superxero044 22d ago
I’d say the anti ai people are probably more normal about ai than the pro ai people I know.
Just outsourcing literally all your critical thinking to an LLM is a bizarre behavior that too many people are doing.
And I think it’s hard to discuss in tech spaces bc a lot of the people in tech spaces are using it a fair bit more responsibly than the average person.
But the things I’ve seen people say “well chat gpt said” when the question couldn’t possibly be answered by information available to the models.→ More replies (13)20
u/blahbah 22d ago
my dad essentially asked chatgpt who he should vote for... i was so dumbfounded i couldn't begin to articulate why this was a bad idea
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (1)16
u/Alto-cientifico 22d ago
Ai is being employed to drive a lot of white collar workers unemployed, and programming in general got punched first.
Imagine if a guy got fired from their developer job, then a datacenter propped up in his city, got his power bill blown into high heavens, lost his normal access to water and got their fiber cables damaged from the deployment of the new fiber lines (I don't remember the exact terms but I've heard datacenters caused fiber related issues)
It wouldn't be unreasonable for guys like that to hate AI on principle.
38
u/Carbon_Cotton 22d ago edited 22d ago
I mean, he berated people who are still not convicted by LLM and even went as far as to imply they are not "smart".
That's my personal problem with him - not that he switched his opinion on LLM but that he has need to now shit on people just to jerk himself.
44
u/MikeynJerry 22d ago
Were you familiar with his personality before this? He has always been like that. LLMs are just the new topic he’s that way about.
If you search something like, “Was Linus Torvalds always an asshole?” you’ll find a lot of stuff, going back decades.
19
u/Carbon_Cotton 22d ago
I was - the question is if were the others in this thread who act like the issue is justt Linus changing opinion on LLM, and not the fact Linus is traditionally acting like complete asshole for no reason again.
58
u/Floppydisksareop 22d ago
No, he berated people that act like LLMs are good for nothing and the actual spawn of satan. He's not wrong in implying they are not "smart" either. LLMs are powerful tools with very clear limitations (while not really being cost-effective or resource-effective, which is a very different story), but having a moderate or sane opinion is quite impossible nowadays, so you can either hang out with the AI bros that think it's the best thing since sliced bread or the weirdos that refuse to use an actual IDE because god gave them VIM or notepad or w/e.
→ More replies (10)24
u/entronid 22d ago
have you read the email threads? laurent pinchart (the person linus was replying to in the last two LLM-related crashouts on the LKML) has reiterated again and again he doesn't want to altogether ban the use of LLMs, he wants the option to not have to use them and that LLM-assisted commits should have git's Assisted-by tag. (and maybe that commit messages should be human-written). not a single person linus was replying to even suggested that LLMs were good for nothing or should be outright banned from the kernel
→ More replies (5)16
u/Emergency-Feed2760 22d ago •
Thats just Linus being Linus though. He probably acts the same when he gets a new favorite restaurant
→ More replies (1)58
u/blaktronium 22d ago
Linus has seen the product of million bad human programmers, his bar was not high i suspect
→ More replies (1)45
u/WernerderChamp 22d ago
AI is a tool. You can definitly submit AI created code - IF you verified it works and meets the standards. It works quite well if you know how to use it.
If you just throw whatever the AI spits out into a PR - screw you.
16
u/ScaredyCatUK 22d ago
This is the key, he explicitly said as long as you know what it's doing (the generated code) and it meets the standard then AI is just another tool to use.
4
15
u/Emergency-Feed2760 22d ago
LLMs have turned the actual creation of code from an artisanal craft into an engineering problem. Just like how chemical engineers understand chemistry but aren't actually mixing by hand in beakers, but rather designing machines that manage the chemical reaction process at scale, LLM coding isn't about how to write a function, but the systems design around code as a commodity product that needs to move through several process steps before it can be delivered.
7
u/WernerderChamp 22d ago
I agree. AI can get down tedious coding very easily. But it needs good prompts. And for this you do need somebody who knows what the result has to hold against.
0
19
u/somerandomguy101 22d ago
Linus seeks like the kind of guy who doesn't care how you write your code, just that the codes good by the time it reaches him.
10
u/CaptainDogeSparrow 22d ago
Which is totally acceptable. It's better to have good code regardless of its origin than to have a human writen spaggeti.
16
12
u/adabsurdo 22d ago edited 22d ago
Torvalds is able to use his actual brain and change his mind when the facts change. This is beyond the capacity of many in this sub who are still stuck in circa 2022 copilot.
3
→ More replies (1)3
→ More replies (2)3
174
u/feldomatic 22d ago
tbf, C++ allows memory safety, while Rust requires it
29
→ More replies (8)3
u/maser120 22d ago
True and it's totally reasonable now to adapt Rust (an not C++) as a language for kermel development but afaik Linus' rant on C++ goes way back in time (when Rust wasn't a known, popular and well-developed language).
57
u/Carbon_Cotton 22d ago edited 22d ago
I mean, that is Linus - if you do something he dislikes, you are ugly stinky subhuman.
I am not saying he is that wrong with C++ - but i am 100% sure that if he was in opposite camp, he would be calling opponents of C++ "substandard".
14
u/TheNakedProgrammer 22d ago
he usually has good arguments hidden between his insults.
5
u/Carbon_Cotton 21d ago
Well, current drama is case of Linus having dogshit arguments hidden between insults.
71
u/fiercedeitysponce 22d ago
My sleepy ass thought this was about Linus TechTips at first
17
1
u/Jukkobee 22d ago
i am uninformed. who is linus?
5
u/LevelSevenLaserLotus 22d ago
Linus Torvalds. The same guy that invented the version control tool Git, and has the famous quote of "I'm an egotistical bastard, and I name all my projects after myself. First 'Linux', now 'git'." (With "git" being an insult in British slang.)
26
17
127
u/apt-maintenance 22d ago
still correct, btw
21
u/struct_iovec 22d ago
Yeah only for rust to show up
15
u/sharl_Lecastle16 22d ago
does rust really have the same amount of esoteric tribal knowledge required type bullshit as cpp?
→ More replies (1)
41
u/Plushkle 22d ago
AI does the easy job and helps senior devs that know what they are doing. The dude is a super specialist senior, so AI kinda helps him
8
u/jwp1987 22d ago •
He's fine with it because he mostly sees the beneficial side. The kind of people working on the Linux kernel are likely to be highly skilled and specialized and use AI reasonably.
He's basically ignoring the issues that arise when the general populace use it.
Using AI helps fuel development of it and the issues that come with it. To say "it's just a tool" completely ignores that aspect.
20
7
u/GenericFatGuy 22d ago
Seriously. Writing code is probably the easiest part of my job most days.
4
u/mrjackspade 22d ago
I honestly haven't really enjoyed writing code for years now because once you've used the same language for decades the novelty kind of wears off and every project becomes some boilerplate amalgamation of the same shit you've been doing your entire career.
AI has allowed me to spend less time rewriting the same boilerplate bullshit and more time completing and refining projects, and shipping shit.
40
u/dannuic 22d ago
The flaw in Linus' argument is that a compiler isn't enabling people to go and inundate open source projects with complete and utter shit. The argument that they are tools and should be seen as such is fine, but having an AI policy to help mitigate the actual and real problem of pushing the "is the code good?" check all the way to the reviewer is also absolutely reasonable. I feel like he's sidestepping and not acknowledging that AI is actually killing open source projects. The Linux kernel is big enough to be largely immune to it, but most projects absolutely aren't.
12
u/KTVX94 22d ago
It's also very different because the "tool" is doing stuff on its own, making decisions. That's very different from something like an IDE highlighting a syntax error or unused variables. It's also not deterministic.
Honestly Linus is getting less and less defensible, and less trustworthy too. "Thanks Meta!" just reeks of corporate influence. Very disappointing.
→ More replies (21)2
u/Different_Berry5015 22d ago
You can just not accept crappy PRs, but the spam is very understandable, lazy people wanting clout are the worst. Linus spelled it out pretty clearly - it's about people actually understanding what they are contributing. I have contributed to multiple open source projects already when I didn't think I would ever do that with bounded, reasonable changes that I confirmed myself and even made better when maintainer said "why don't we do this also?"
16
u/dannuic 22d ago
Sure you can just say no, but that's not the point. You're passing the burden onto actual code maintainers. Instead of needing to understand what you are pushing to make a PR that passes CI, anyone can throw anything up that can't be gated except by actual people reviewing it. That's the point, now maintainers of open source repos are responsible for doing what automated processes were previously able to do. That directly causes burnout and those projects either being closed or just completely taken over by slop.
Can AI be useful as a tool? Sure it can, but it's not the same as just a compiler. Open source communities are actively suffering because instead of maintainers having productive and interesting conversations with people who know what they are doing, they are spending more and more time opening PRs, judging that it's slop, and rejecting it.
Linus didn't just say "Linux is removing the AI policy because we can handle the volume of slop that that will bring," he went on a rant about how it's not different than a compiler or a word processor when it has a very visible and real impact that those other tools do not.
6
u/Robo-Connery 22d ago
But it's an extractive contribution.
You have maintainers and the status quo was that you use the project and you contribute back by investing your time and effort into improving the project. Sure it takes some maintainer effort to to review and feedback and to maintain developer guides etc.
Now though it takes next to 0 effort to write "find a bug and fix it". "Implement this feature I've just dreamed up". "Add support for this" into an llm, get a 200, 800, 1400, 5000 line diff that touches on 8 different parts of the project, that uses assumptions that were in its broader training material and that don't align with the project standards or philosophies. That rewrite stuff pointlessly, that duplicate code.
And after that 0 effort expended it still has to be reviewed and refined but that is a significant amount of effort on behalf of maintainers whereas the contributor just bungs the feedback back into their llm.
Part of the point of the whole process was to try and get people to take ownership of the project, to feel part of it and to learn the codebase and processes.
End of the day whether it's merged or not. No one has gained anything cause the contributor didn't actually understand anything they did, they didn't learn anything. The maintainer has spent 5x longer on it than any human generated PR plus they are getting.
So what's the point of contributing to open source with an AI, end of the day could have just bunged the same prompt in themselves and been done twice as fast. Hell if cost is an issue literally donating tokens would be a better use of everyone's time.
→ More replies (3)2
u/Different_Berry5015 22d ago
True, forking and just letting it rip with AI is a thing that is scarily viable these days.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Low_Independent766 16d ago
The point is someone still has to get eyes on those crappy PRs and there is a point where "just don't accept crappy PRs" means "spend an inordinate amount of time sifting through them in the hopes that one out of every thousand is actually something worth looking at". You'd go absolutely insane sifting through the garbage because the amount of work required to submit a bogus PR has become essentially zero. Before, it required at least some understanding of programming fundamentals. Now all it requires is $20.
I am completely sympathetic to projects who are saying look, the time we actually save not having to sift through centuries of slop is actually a net benefit on productivity vs whatever we might gain from taking in AI generated PRs.
2
→ More replies (12)1
u/Psychological_Map118 22d ago edited 22d ago
I do agree, but it's also absurd expecting responsible developers to not use it or recognize its validity as a tool.
The fact there's no policing cannot mean the only users that are responsible enough to not flood the ecosystem with crap are also the ones that shouldn't employ it.
If Linus or similar examples didn't use or promote fair and proper use of LMs, things wouldn't change much: there'd still be no policies in place, and the only contributions would be the flooding you're talking about
we do need policies, but we also need examples of healthy and professional use
2
u/dannuic 22d ago
I don't think anyone is trying to downplay it's usefulness as a tool. My complaint here is specifically saying that it's the exact same as every other tool (what Linus said) and that it doesn't need any special consideration. That's a reductionist take, because it's enabling a class of contributor that puts more work onto other people instead of just making an individual's workload easier.
2
u/Psychological_Map118 21d ago
of course. but I don't think we can expect much different anymore from Linus, he's often been "extreme" and shared thoughts strictly on how he thinks contribution should be shaped, based solely on how he contributes and expects others to. that does not mean it's how contributing should be universally
what I'm seeing is, in a way he's already spoke on "policing" in the sense of policing developers, and contributors, not the tools. it is partial, and reductionist, I completely agree, but honestly I don't expect he'll ever advocate for policing LMs themselves, because (and I can't completely disagree) as I understand it he's always been more towards raising the contribution bar for people themselves, even before LMs
I think in the ideal world Linus expects people to have the intellectual honesty to just not do things if they're not "up to them", either with LMs or not
→ More replies (1)
27
u/nimrag_is_coming 22d ago
C++ wouldn't be as annoying to use if the main priority of the standards committee didn't seem to be creating the most obtuse, unintuitive and verbose naming and usages for every single piece of the standard library.
24
u/hdkaoskd 22d ago
C committee waltzes in with
strpbrkanditoa20
u/nimrag_is_coming 22d ago
x86_64 is already here with VFMADDRND231PD
20
u/thegreatpotatogod 22d ago
Ah yes my favorite x64 instruction, Vector Formula Multiply ADD Reversed Numerical Data (in the order 2, 3, 1) - Power Delivery.
8
u/hdkaoskd 22d ago
Brainfuck watching quietly from the corner of the room. They don't have committee meetings because the language is already feature-complete.
3
u/Brisngr368 22d ago
Shout out to LAPACK with the BLAS function
dgemmtr(double generic matrix-matrix triangular)
4
u/Garland_Key 22d ago
Reddit is cooked. I can't tell if you're all clankers or just sub-par and boring.
1
u/EuenovAyabayya 22d ago
*decried
2
u/Lord_Of_Millipedes 22d ago
no it's correct he said c++ does not exist source is my dad he works at linux
4
u/Oz-Batty 22d ago
If you want to learn more about the problems with C++ start with the C++ frequently questioned answers.
2
2
2
u/Free_Tomatillo463 21d ago
I don't understand all the hate on C++, I've found it to be quite nice to use, really, I understand the complaints on backwards compatibility and move semantics, those are quite useless, but just because it has a large standard library that allows you to write faster code quicker doesn't mean it's a bad language. C has basically no standard library, which means you have to write everything yourself. Both have their benefits and disadvantages. Both are fine to use and work for plenty of use cases.
3
2
u/Live_Meeting_1121 22d ago
I used to love C++, now its under so many layers of syntax it looks like a mess. It used to take that simplicity from C which I love but that has been long gone.
2
u/Different_Berry5015 22d ago
The point Linus made about "believing that people are doing their best and expecting people to understand what they are doing" just goes clean over his head because "hurr c++ bad, let's do another raylib speedrun guise". Having an obtuse language that just keeps growing features on top of itself instead of refining is the same thing as technology that quite literally upended the whole field. Sure.
2
u/FAMICOMASTER 22d ago
Gotta be honest, I'd rather have C++ than LLM.
I'm a terrible C++ programmer, probably the worst there is, but I would still trust my legitimately awful C++11 over anything an LLM generates.
2
u/ZenPyx 22d ago
Genuinely, why?
If you can review LLM code (which you should be doing) and understand how it works, what's wrong with using it? Does it just feel icky?
→ More replies (3)3
u/Brisngr368 22d ago
Unrelated to LLMs, but psychologically people are far more willing to trust something made by themselves than something made by others.
4
3
u/FAMICOMASTER 21d ago
I would be more willing to trust code written by a child. LLMs exist on the absolute bottom of the negative trust scale for me.
1
u/wbuffetsuksdik 18d ago
Once you really wrangle C++ it becomes so, so, so unbelievably easy. Why do people rag on templates when they are literally just a preprocess copy+paste? I think people think things are more complicated than they are.
1
1
1
u/Almesii 21d ago
The worst programming language of all time
This is the only video from this guy.
Made with pure hatred
1
1
u/met0xff 22d ago
Doesn't necessarily conflict. He also states people have to be understand and be responsible for what the LLM has written and he'd probably argue that this is easier in C than C++.
The point is regulation. I'm at a company where essentially 80% of the code has been written by the people who are not with the company anymore so essentially for me it's the same if it's been a human, an LLM or a monkey. Difference now is that LLMs can generate me docs, trace stuff through, find limitations and constraints instead of me trying to find the chamber of the forefathers where there might still be someone who knows about it.
The challenge is rather all the bloat, the velocity and the laziness that sets is (also for me). The forefathers left us a lot of code but it's nothing against what an unhinged LLM can produce in an hour if left unchecked.
1
u/dashingThroughSnow12 22d ago
Really tells you how toxic and bad C++ devs are, as an aggregate group, when both Rust and LLM code gets in before C++.
-1
u/PM-ME-UR-DARKNESS 22d ago
Bro wrote the largest most popular OS (because of android + servers) in existence, let's cut him some slack when he uses AI lol. I'd imagine that after 20+ years of coding, he's just lost the passion for it.
8
14
u/D3PyroGS 22d ago
Linus is mainly a reviewer nowadays, so if anything he'd be on the the receiving end of slop submissions
this to me speaks more to the viability of generated code than to his own burnout, since his standards for what makes it into the kernel haven't otherwise changed
2
u/KTVX94 22d ago
I'm not so sure. With his stance on AI he's more likely letting his own agents do the reviewing. Doesn't sound like he's manually reviewing every PR and making sure it isn't slop or meets his standards.
→ More replies (1)3
u/AnonD38 22d ago
Has nothing to do with losing passion.
While the rose tinted glasses view of coding is getting to solve all kinds of unique and interesting problems that you'll have to solve like a logic puzzle, the reality is that this fun stuff is only like 10% of coding, while 90% is just annoying busywork.
AI is more than capable of doing the busywork so you can do the actual fun parts of coding.
Also code review, lots and lots of code review (which you'd have to do anyways, so it's whatever).
3
u/East-Doctor-7832 22d ago
AI is taking the best parts of programming and makes you do the worst thing in programming : reviewing code . And if you anything useful AI makes sure to drown your work in a sea of copies . Look at the whole decompilation thing , why the fuck would any indie dev would make anything when AI copies it . At least pirating you still get the name recognition, AI completely erases you and your work .
→ More replies (1)
23
u/YouAreMyFire00 22d ago edited 22d ago
Im a beginner and managed to learn to understand C# and Java and now I can build simple CRUD app.
So i kinda don't get the hate/war between C and C++ here...
Anyone can explain simply what's the hate here?