Sure anything other than the 10th LLM discourse of the week.

I see. Yeah, when I see the whole article, it's mostly clear if it's ai or not. But the above excerpt could just be an ai enthusiast praising it.

Don't forget the loudest tell: Quietly.

People who use AI a lot (like me) recognize it instantly. Recent studies find if you take 5 people who use AI a lot and have then grade human or AI output the majority vote is 99% accurate.

They misclassified 1 out of 300 articles

Not only yes, but imo, hell yes. I think a lot of what is missing from the dialog these days is talk about fundamentals. And all though that is for a reason practically (as things get higher level, we think of low level things less often), it loses out on some really fascinating topics. For example, how processors actually do cache, endianness, instruction sets, algorithms, etc., are all just fascinating topics to think about.

So my vote is, more of that.

I don't see why not, but I see there are several computer science communities, maybe better post there. My instance's community search tells me !compsci@lemmy.world is somewhat active (by Lemmy standards).

LLMs love advertising / speechwriting techniques. Wikipedia has a good list here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signs_of_AI_writing

If you use AI regularly these things are very very obvious.

That is incredible. Much of the specifics are beyond me, but the authors clearly enjoyed writing this piece!

ick

Make is fine unless you want to build on Windows. Then you kind of need something else.

I agree, you kind of need something else instead of Windows if you want to build software.

It is the very slow process creation infrastructure that kills Make as a tool on Windows.

s/Make as a tool on //

Give me a Make that

• properly handles filenames with arbitrary names (Make today breaks if filenames contain whitespace)
• uses space-based indentation level (Make today depends on the invisible difference between U+0008 TAB versus other whitespace, and refuses to process any other indentation)

Give me that, and... well, I'd probably still stick to current-day Make, because those improvements would cause my Makefiles to be backward incompatible. Make is just reliably available on pretty much any arbitrary system, unlike any candidate replacement.

Yes, it scales down to single files, and that is a common use case

This analysis was brutal and beautiful.

Alternatively, don't fix what ain't broken.

Yeah, turns out that I really REALLY want that .pdf purchase so I can put it on my own hard drive and not have it disappear and get deleted because daddy bezos says the license expired.

Fuck amazon.

I wish there were good alt-shells on Linux. Murex and Nushell are both still pretty nascent to actually use (not for portable scripts but just general day-to-day tasks) - and if it's something you care about it's annoying that Nushell is MIT-licensed instead of a free license, which kind of also precludes zsh.

I genuinely kind of miss working a job that required using Windows because PowerShell is genuinely nice to use for throwaway tasks and working in a shell to do things like parsing json, fetching data from a http server, whatever.

Yeah maybe, but usually if I'm using Make it's because my use case is "I want users to be able to build stuff without having to install any more build tools". The curse of network effects. That's the only reason I'd ever use Bash too. Otherwise I'd switch to Nushell in a second.

Can that scale down to individual .cpp files though? My understanding was that it works more at the package level.

Conan and vcpkg are the two big ones I'm familiar with, but some projects use CMake FetchContent (with github acting as the CDN/registry), and depending on your requirements you can also just use system package managers on Linux, maybe Homebrew or Nix/Guix, or more niche ones like Spack. I've seen projects packaged using self hosted Pacman registries, and that works surprisingly well.

There are? Where are the package registries? Could you give examples?

This is one that you can Google with filetype:pdf and it’ll come up immediately.

Literally shared from major universities, too!

Got mine in '92, I think. Still on my shelf.

You can find a paperback copy for under $12 with shipping, and the pdf version is widely available on the internet. The kindle version is purely a "I really want the kindle version" purchase.

It's still one of the best PL books. I learned C from it when I was 16, years before the web.

Thank you for the answer!

I have not previously heard Meson described as a reinvention of Cmake or a CMake clone, nor that it was meant to be. I would think that Meson being as opinionated as it is, including for example the fact that it does not and will not support user-defined functions, precludes it from being a CMake clone. It seems instead to be a build-system with a rather different philosophy and feature-set compared to Cmake. But if that philosophy or that feature-set does not match your needs, then there's obviously no reason to pick it over CMake