i wrote a post about the growing divide between AI skeptics and AI enthusiasts.
wins and costs are both real, but too often fall on different groups of people. when you're only experiencing half the story, it's too easy to write each other off.
charitydotwtf.substack.com/p/ai-enthusi...
Both sides are grappling with a real existential threat, and both sides feel like they are screaming into the void. Here's how to close the gap and get everyone pulling in the same direction.
I just published a proposal for a new RSS profile type for Go.
It aims to solve the issue that the heap profile typically shows < 50% of process RSS, which is very confusing.
It should also help to quickly identify when memory usage is dominated by cgo.
github.com/golang/go/is...
Felix Geisendörfer
Most nil checks I see in Go aren't defensive programming. They're a sign that the code lost track of what can and cannot be nil. A nil check is good when it enforces a real boundary. It's suspicious when it silently handles a state your program claims is impossible konradreiche.com/blog/excessi...
I got to meet Steve Yegge in Montreal. Super nice guy and we had a short but interesting conversation.
TL;DR
We need to recognize developers are writing code even when a tool is performing the work. Engineering means the developer steers the model, not the other way around.
Interesting finding from benchmarks, protobuf's Go opaque API was a win for elementary fields, but the gains fell off once those fields were wrapped in oneof.
Google Maps the moment you start directions: "There's a 20 minute delay, but you're still on the fastest route."
Nothing you can do about it. Just thought you should know.
We need to talk about excessive nil pointer checks in Go. Writing code that's safe and prevents panics is excellent, but when we reach the point where no pointer can be trusted, we've dug ourselves into a hole.
