firelizzard

I thought you were saying to literally use def main(): pass, that’s why I was confused

What is the point of this?

Saying “front end is not proper software engineering” is bullshit but at the same time if you hire someone to write code and then ask them to write CSS I can understand being frustrated.

There’s no difference between SSA and ASS in that context so it’s pointless to punish a student for that

I’m not saying it doesn’t happen. This thread started because I said I’ve never understood why people talk like tar is some indecipherable black magic. Common tasks are easy and there’s a man page for everything else.

Literally the only time I’ve ever run into that is when I was trying to manipulate the path it extracted to. In 99% of cases I’m doing tf, xf, or cf plus flags for the compression type, etc, and those differences are irrelevant.

I almost never create a tarball, so I have to look up the syntax for that. Which is as simple as man tar. But as far as extracting it almost couldn't be easier, tar xf <tarball> and call it a day. Or if you want to list the contents without extracting, tar tf <tarball>. Unless you're using an ancient version of tar, it will detect and handle whatever compression format you're using without you having to remember if you need z or J or whatever.

I’ve never understood why people are so intimidated by tar

I thoroughly agree, you should always have CI tools to ensure it builds, passes tests, and meets whatever formatting and/or linting standards the team sets. I was specifically responding to "Rust makes it harder for a ‘contributor’ to sneak in LLM-generated crap". If I get a contribution from an untrusted party, I will start with the assumption that it's utter garbage, buggy, broken, and malicious and review it until I'm convinced it's not. Not because I assume the dev is bad but because it's safer to assume the code is garbage. If I get a contribution from a trusted party (e.g. a member of the dev team/employee/whatever) I will review the code carefully though not with as much paranoia. I don't particularly care if my teammates are using LLMs, but if they're submitting code they don't understand that's a great way to get ejected from the "trusted contributors" group, and if they're an employee it's a good way to get fired if they keep doing it after being warned not to.

That does sound unpleasant and I can understand why you prefer Windows. Personally, I rarely have problems with Linux that aren't self inflicted and IMO Windows is an absolute garbage fire of an OS so there's no way I'd ever daily drive it.

In what situation are you accepting contributions that you haven't vetted thoroughly enough to detect crap code? I've seen a lot of crap from developers that's as bad or worse than LLM generated crap so there's no way I'll ever accept contributions to an important system without thoroughly vetting them unless they're from one of a very few number of people I trust implicitly.

I’ve had success with Claude, but there’s always a layer of separation. I ask it to do something, read what it produced, and decide if it’s garbage or not. And rewrite or discard as necessary. Though counting by LOC mainly I’ve used it for writing tests.