It's not even close. vscode can approximate JB IDEs but that takes pulling in plugins on your own, managing their configuration, and adapting when the setup inevitably breaks. JB IDEs bake in everything you can get via vscode plugins with documentation, a cohesive experience, and regular maintenance to keep them working for you. Concrete examples that are better in JB land for me: git conflict resolution, refactoring (in numerous ways), jumping to definitions, finding usages (especially on Python projects).
That's always been my experience. Not even close. One gives you legos that lets you make a plastic toy, and the other is an industrial machine shop for code.
I thought maybe I was holding VSCode wrong, though.
> I thought maybe I was holding VSCode wrong, though.
Likewise (Same with zed). I've given them a thorough try several times, assuming I was holding it wrong as you say based on conversations with others who use them effectively. I've reached the conclusion you say here each time.
I vouched for you here because this compiler is interesting to me and I'd like to see some discussion on it. All your comments are listed as 'dead' though. Likely because they seem to be LLM-generated. Maybe writing by hand or noting you're using an LLM for translation (if you are) would help.
The post probably should have been show HN too being posted by the author himself. I don't know all of the rules but perhaps it would be better for engagement if you reposted the project for him.
I was looking for a timeline given the title. Oldest path seems to be 3 months ago so $300 and 3 months? That could buy you a second-hand graphics card to run the current batch of local models.
I used my $100-per-month Cloud Code subscription. It was enough to build the compiler from scratch. Although the subscription also allowed me to work on other projects simultaneously, the methodology optimizes resource usage—an important aspect to demonstrate as well. That is why I chose to create a C compiler.
Yes, it involved seven weeks of work using Claude Code sessions—from July 25 to September 14, as indicated by the repository commits.
The total cost was simply the recurring monthly subscription fee. I wasn't granted any extra credits by CC; although I occasionally hit my weekly usage limit—partly due to consumption from other projects—I would simply wait a few hours before resuming work.
I spent six to eight hours a day interacting with the session, and whenever I had the time, I dedicated even more hours to it, as my goal was to get the job done. During the final days, much of the time was spent waiting for regression tests to pass so I could proceed with debugging.
The service remained active throughout the entire seven-week period. I consistently used Opus 4.8 to maintain model consistency during development.
I am using an LLM solely to help improve my translation. The compiler works, and the code explains it very well. We can discuss the compiler and the method I used to create it with the help of AI.
It always bugs me to think about the Python community not rallying around PyPy. Faster Python is right there and has been there for years. Sure there can be C-extension issues but projects like HPy showed you can remedy that. Why doesn’t everyone just use and support PyPy?
"C-extension issues" are not something you can just gloss over. They're a huge chunk of python usage. Users won't rally around that. And Hpy is dead. If CPython embraced PuPy, worked with it to smooth those issues then maybe things would be different.
I do think Go and Java are strong examples of this. Those languages have native code support, but it’s clunky to use and, more importantly, very rare.
If you removed JNA/JNI/CGo, plenty of people would complain…but the vast majority of uses of those languages would still work, unaltered, because most common tasks on the JVM and Go runtime don’t require external native deps.
Well, see popularity of CGO among Go devs, or JNI among Java devs, or the ongoing work to make all the learnings from System C# (from Midori) available in regular C#, while C++/CLI is slowly left in maintenance mode (last updated for partial C++20 support, and not part of FOSS .NET)
All of those are for non native code to call code in those languages. Nobody is saying "all Go code must never invoke native code". That would be wild and to my knowledge, there's no major language that forces such a constraint.
I can't tell if you're being willfully ignorant or not. The comment I was replying to was proposing banning C extensions: invoking native binaries that are not written in the host language and compiled in (at build or runtime). What you're describing has nothing to do with that.
Why would a Go binary (to keep the examples short), compiled to native code, with a compiler toolchain that includes support for Assembly if necessary, and a syscall package as well, have to depend on C extensions?
PyPy makes tradeoffs that might not be acceptable. For anything that isn't a long running server, PyPy can be much, much slower since the JIT doesn't have a chance to warm up. PyPy also implements things differently: repeated string concatenation in a loop is quadratic instead of linear like in CPython. There's also memory tradeoffs, depending on what you're doing.
The list of differences is quite long, and even though most of them are edge cases, it's not hard to get bitten by one on a project of any substantial size:
It's not that people are writing weird code, it's that you have a package that does something clever but safe, and then another package using it that calls it in a way that's unexpected but not documented as unsafe, and layers and layers of that compound until you have things like exceptions raised because non-string keys are getting set on type objects.
At the end of the day, Python isn't a terribly well-specified language. CPython behavior is functionally the specification. "Make it match CPython but faster" isn't really an option because it kills your ability to do a lot of the things that make PyPy fast. And if that was all it took, we wouldn't still be arguing over a JIT inside CPython. Pyston was an honest attempt at doing that, but it has been dead for years partially because it hit many of these walls.
> but it has been dead for years partially because it hit many of these walls
Maybe this is one of the reasons. But I've also heard that Dropbox (which was making Pyston [0]), that used to heavily rely on Python, just decided that gradual migration to Go [1] is a more feasible approach than creating a faster Python implementation.
As in how to interact with office docs programmatically? It's in the second text blurb, you can make a new COM object. For example new Excel Workbook:
$excel = New-Object -ComObject excel.application
From there you have full access to all parts of the document as properties & can call whatever methods are available to edit the document.
As for how we enforce style guide on a presentation, each slide runs through a workflow checking the various style-guide rules that we have / corporate has
- Ensure correct template is used
- Set and enforce correct font
- Check text boxes for font size to check verbosity / readability
- Flag / remove animations (not accessible)
- Flag images without alt-text
and so on
for a 300 slide new release presentation, it takes about 45 seconds for the script to process and auto-fixes what makes sense to auto-fix (e.g., wrong fonts) and adds comments / generates report on what needs to be reviewed and adjusted
I grew up in another country where Jamaican patties were popular and ordering a 'beef patty' would never get you a burger patty unless you were in a burger joint. Same as in Toronto; asking for patty (or beef patty) will 99% of the time get you a Jamaican patty.
>>Not being from Toronto, never in a million years would I even think of that as a visitor.
>I grew up in another country where Jamaican patties were popular [...]
Have you considered the possibility that Jamaican patties aren't universally popular and the fact that the two of you came from cities with a significant Jamaican diaspora doesn't invalidate the experience of the person who probably came from a city that didn't?
All of that may be true and yet it seems overly prescriptive for a state authority to determine the name of food. After all, a cheesesteak is not a steak but a sandwich. Regional variations on names are quite reasonable. On the other hand, Canadians are a prescriptive culture. In Montreal, for instance, they are very strict about street signs and so on. Perhaps it is just how things are done by that people.
> After all, a cheesesteak is not a steak but a sandwich.
I don't know if you're not seeing the obvious or deliberately ignoring it, but the rather-salient differences between those are that (a) "cheesesteak" being one word rather than two tells you it might be a different thing, and (b) "cheesesteak" (or even "cheese steak" by itself) do not carry a single universal meaning different from the rest. You know, unlike "beef patty", where even Googling it now doesn't show Jamaica in the top result.
If you want something to compare against, this is like banning people businesses from calling soymilk just "milk". Nobody minds if you sell soymilk or Jamaican beef patties. They're just asking you not to actively hijack terms that carry significantly different meaning to millions/billions of other people. It's not that hard and it's not some sort of totalitarian flex to have rules like this. With HN being what it is, they'd probably call banning that anti-veganism.
or, just let people call things what they want, and focus on real problems instead. Even this comment as I’m typing feels like too much time committed to the subject.
I don't think these kind of language struggles are as minor as you paint them, especially around regulation and law-making.
a well understood and unified spoken language is the keystone to a lot of human endeavor; even if the goal is a region without language barriers the bootstrap process towards that goal is accelerated by a common tongue.
> or, just let people call things what they want, and focus on real problems instead. Even this comment as I’m typing feels like too much time committed to the subject.
If a problem isn't yours that doesn't mean it's fake.
You can simply not waste your time on it, that's not other people's problem. Why should they even care that you're wasting your time? When you clearly don't care about them wasting time or money due to this stuff, you should expect zero sympathy for your own time wastage on the subject. You need to show sympathy before you receive it.
> If you want something to compare against, this is like banning people businesses from calling soymilk just "milk".
Big Dairy got to you, huh.
There’s nothing wrong with referring to other kinds of milk as milk. If anything, cow’s milk should be clearly labeled as such, if we’re following the approach of identifying ingredients properly.
> There’s nothing wrong with referring to other kinds of milk as milk.
There very much is. For most people, if they go to a shop and ask for milk and get handed goat milk, they will get annoyed. Similarly if they ask for eggs and get handed duck eggs or quail eggs. I don't know why common sense is so lacking on this forum but this is not my opinion, this is a fact.
But yeah, if someone disagrees with you they're just Big Dairy shill. There's no other way a rational person could disagree with another.
This is not the definition supporting the statement that cow milk and almond milk are both kinds of milk. Implicitely relying on different definitions inside a single statement is an example of equivocation.
If you are going to quote a dictionary, please first ensure you are quoting it properly and without misrepresenting the contents and b) that in cases wherein a definition has multiple potential meanings it lists the different uses from common to uncommon.
MILK, n.
1. A white fluid or liquor, secreted by certain glands in female animals, and drawn from the breasts for the nourishment of their young.NWAD MILK.2
2. The white juice of certain plants.NWAD MILK.3
3. Emulsion made by bruising seeds.NWAD MILK.4
And, just in case the commonality of milk being milk from a cow, see also the other shorthand definitions noted on pages 987 and 988 of the table of contents.
MILKEN, a. Consisting of milk. [Not used.]
MILKER, n. One that milks.
MILK-FEVER, n. A fever which accompanies the first flowing of milk in females after childbirth.
MILK-HEDGE, n. A shrub growing on the Coromandel coast, containing a milky juice.
MILKINESS, n. Qualities like those of milk; softness.
MILK-LIVERED, a. Cowardly; timorous.
MILKMAID, n. A woman that milks or is employed in the dairy.
MILKMAN, n. A man that sells milk or carries milk to market.
MILKPAIL, n. A pail which receives the milk drawn from cows.
MILKPAN, n. A pan in which milk is set.
MILKPORRIDGE, MILKPOTTAGE, n. A species of food composed of milk or milk and water, boiled with meal or flour.
MILKSCORE, n. An account of milk sold or purchased in small quantities, scored or marked.
MILKSOP, n. A soft, effeminate, feeble-minded man.
MILK-THISTLE, n. A plant of the genus Carduus.
MILKTOOTH, n. The fore tooth of a foal, which is cast within two or three years.
MILK-TREFOIL, n. A plant, the cytisus.
MILK-VETCH, n. A plant of the genus Astragalus.
MILK-WORT, n. A plant of the genus Euphorbia; spurge.
MILK-WEED, n. A plant, the Asclepias Syriaca.
MILKWHITE, a. White as milk.
MILKWOMAN, n. A woman that sells milk.
MILKY, a. Made of milk.
Specifically note the commonality of milk dash thing when it refers to plants. Not that it's particularly relevant, aside from the actual commonly used definition of milk already provides an example of milk being commonly understood as milk. As an additional example, look to the definition of mentioning almond milk on page 2134. Specifically note that it says milk of almonds, and not just milk.
AMYGDALATE, a. [L. amygdalus, an almond.] Made of almonds.
AMYGDALATE, n. An emulsion made of almonds; milk of almonds.
I’m from New Haven and if you went into a place and asked for a beef patty you would get a Jamaican beef patty, not a burger. It may not be everywhere, but pretty much every city I’ve lived in that is the case
Anecdote: I asked for the "mushroom burger" on their menu at an airport years ago -- I didn't want meat and it had nothing indicting meat in the listed ingredients that I checked -- and they brought me a hamburger beef patty with mushrooms on top. Imagine both of our surprises when they brought me the plate and I was like uhm I think that's another table's order? Well it turns out, at least to that restaurant (idk about the rest of the locality), that was considered a mushroom burger. Elsewhere in the same country (and even Googling it now), a mushroom burger means a vegetarian burger with a portobello mushroom or such as the "patty". Like how a salmon burger means the patty is made of salmon, or a veggie burger means the patty is made of veggies.
I sat there looking dumb and the waiter thought (like everyone here) that I was some idiot who didn't know what a burger was. Now I'm not suggesting they need to regulate what "mushroom burger" means across the locality too, but I couldn't have been the first one to get caught off-guard by this, and the whole incident never needed to happen either. At least in an airport where people from all over stop by, I seriously wouldn't think that only a racist or anti-meatatarian/anti-vegetarian dictatorship would impose some common-sense rules to prevent confusion or food/time wastage arising from cuisine-"unculturedness".
If I ordered a mushroom burger (especially as my preferred “mushroom and Swiss burger”), I’d be surprised if it came without the beef patty (the burger part).
It’s not that I can’t understand that the other exists, but my brain is wired to think of mushroom as a topping/adjective and burger as the noun.
I've seen the meat version plenty of times too, it's not like I couldn't understand that either. That was the entire reason I checked the ingredients, which had never failed me until then. Restaurants normally list something about the meat if it's there... but not always.
Which I point out here because there are people saying "just check the ingredients" and, no, this clearly happened despite that.
And which I also point out because the same people arguing "just check the ingredients" would get mad (possibly even more so) if you actually agree and decide to require reliable ingredient lists.
I once ordered a vegetarian burger in some kind of trivia bar of a big american city. It came with bacon... When I asked they said: "but nobody ever complained about having bacon in it". there are alternate realities out there. Even in the deepest small town I had never seen that.
Perhaps you should visit more of the US, or visit different types of restaurants? Neither meaning is as dominant as you make it sound. You see both within five minute walks of each other.
Haha I guess we discovered the mysterious country you were referring to when you said, "Elsewhere in the same country." I wonder why you didn't want to reveal it? Could it be because you knew you were wrong, ahead of time?
I'm talking about restaurants, not SEO'd slop recipe sites on google.
> You see both within five minute walks of each other.
Chili's mushroom swiss burger: https://www.chilis.com/menu/big-mouth-burgers/mushroom-swiss... - notice how this one doesn't say anything about a meat patty, except for the picture. That's because without some kind of qualifer, by default "burger" means a sandwich with a beef patty, everywhere in the US.
Those are chain restaurants which can be found throughout the US, so you can't claim this is something regional. I defy you to find a single counterexample at a restaurant like this. Certainly, this is going to be what you get at any airport restaurant.
Here's an example of how vegeterian mushroom burgers are typically listed, at https://www.barhygge.com/menus : "Mushroom-Barley Veggie Burger". Notice the "veggie". That's what will typically be specified unless you're at a vegan or vegetarian place where it's assumed.
> Haha I guess we discovered the mysterious country you were referring to when you said, "Elsewhere in the same country." I wonder why you didn't want to reveal it?
Reveal what? The country of the airport and my travel was irrelevant. You wanted to talk about the US and I talked about the US.
> Could it be because you knew you were wrong, ahead of time?
Wow, you totally caught me.
> notice how this one doesn't say anything about a meat patty, except for the picture.
Except the picture? Why the heck would I ignore the picture? Do you understand the fundamental issue here, or do you think it was that I was too stupid to look for a picture when I looked at the menu at the airport?
Since it's so difficult to comprehend: the whole problem is over whether information is communicated adequately enough that people can confidently understand what they're buying. The format of said communication, whether typewritten on a menu, imaged digitally, drawn by hand, handwritten on papyrus, engraved into a rock, or verbal from the waiter... is so clearly not the point.
> also no mention of beef.
It's literally in the photo. You seem to be really struggling to find examples where this information is actually missing. I wonder why.
reply