As somewhat of an outsider, the C++ spec process seems really strange to me.
It’s weird that major features are designed from start to finish without even having so much as a demo.
It feels like there should be a back and forth process between committee proposal -> experimental impl in a major compiler -> community feedback, and so on.
It sounds like it’s basically the waterfall approach to language design? They write a glorious spec and chuck it out to the world, and hope that compilers can implement it and people actually find it useful. Example: modules.
> It’s weird that major features are designed from start to finish without even having so much as a demo.
Not necessarily. In broad terms, Boost is considered a staging ground for features proposed to C++. Compiler projects also keep up with the standards.
In this case the concept guys continuously dropped the ball on this requirement though. One of the papers pointing the many flaws in the proposal calls out this shortcoming, where contracts have neither a workable reference implementation nor an adequate specification. In fact, they handwaved a lot over details with vague calls to "implementation-defined".
I think it basically stems from the idea of “conceptual learning”. Which has been a pedagogical ideology for quite some time now. And is also convenient if you’re a bit addicted to your phone, a bit lazy due to AI, and want to still feel good about “learning” things.
We’ve known that one important component for learning (not the only thing that matters, but an important one) is the memorization of facts.
There seems to be a big urge to pretend that’s not true. E.g. you can learn arithmetic without memorizing your multiplication tables, literature without engaging with the canon, and now apparently coding without even having coded.
The idea is if we start with a top-down conceptual approach we will eventually vibe our way into knowledge acquisition. Which does sort of work.
However, sorry to be a curmudgeon, but the people who just “do the work” and actually spend time on task to learn a bunch of stuff … are actually more knowledgeable on average.
We need a PRD, an EDD, an ADR, success metrics defined, product sign-off, leadership sponsorship, Figma designs, a Jira epic, timeline estimates, sprint planning, and statistically significant A/B experimental outcomes to be able to implement a feature like that!
The good news is that we did automate the coding portion.
Don't forget that two senior stakeholders disagree vehemently on what the solution is and you've got to meet with them over and over again to get consensus. Oh and one of them is difficult and keeps relitigating settled debates because he didn't get his way
This is both hilarious and painful to read. One keeps saying "obviate" at every opportunity and concludes every meeting by deciding we need to rebuild the data model.
I agree, Disneys’ dubs are generally of high quality.
Netflix seems to just grab radio announcers or something. The dubs are stripped of all emotions and acting. It’s like the voices are reading out an advertisement.
Obviously there’s exceptions, but Disney seems to employ actual actors. The dubs feel natural and native for the most part.
I don’t know, but typically when orgs don’t make logical decisions, it’s because internal politics are incentivizing something else.
I suspect that rate-limits would fly in the face of a lot of narratives like “Azure is ready for hyperscale”. And getting eyes on Github is probably a part of their Copilot product strategy.
It’s weird that major features are designed from start to finish without even having so much as a demo.
It feels like there should be a back and forth process between committee proposal -> experimental impl in a major compiler -> community feedback, and so on.
It sounds like it’s basically the waterfall approach to language design? They write a glorious spec and chuck it out to the world, and hope that compilers can implement it and people actually find it useful. Example: modules.
reply