Are you dealing with MBB consultants? These are ivy-educated MBAs with no operating experience and no real expertise in almost anything other than powerpoint and credential attainment.
Mr Beast is talking about actual experts in incredibly niche things, like baking giant cakes. Completely different type of person to the extent that "consultant" is just a total misnomer if you're used to the term in the land of F1000 corpo-speak. Mr Beast is probably reaching out to people guerilla-style that don't even have "consulting" firms -- which makes total sense if you're doing crazy stuff on YouTube.
>They literally offer no significant advantage other than being an alternative to Github.
Gitlab had many features first. Namely, they had integrated CI way before GitHub did. Their open CI runners are really cool and easy to setup. GitHub had to scramble to put out their Actions product to compete.
I don’t know what the feature comparison looks like today, but many of the innovative features you probably use on GitHub were on Gitlab first. They had a way more innovation velocity for quite a while.
"Java is not an innovative language" does not mean "Java was never an innovative language".
I get the feeling Java seems to have suffered from its early success, pioneering things like generics in GC languages, which competitors like C# were able to do better, but only because Microsoft decided to break compatibility between .NET 1 and .NET 2 or because there was no compatibility to break. After that, the language seems to have shyed away from innovation out of fear of breaking things for a long time.
In recent years, this has changed, but Java has a lot of language features to catch up on. Project Loom (green threading without coloured functions) is the first innovative thing I've seen Java do in recent history.
that was 30 years ago? New Java developers have been born after the original inception and learned the language long after. Reputations change over time.
Core Java was staunchly against incorporating any functional features while the rest of the ecosystem was innovating
Sure, because Java isn't a functional language. Taking a wait-and-see approach to whether the style of programming will be a fad is defensible choice when you have to support it forever. And it kind of was a fad. The only thing that really came of it in most mainstream langages is passing functions as arguments. I've yet to encounter a code-base in the wild that's actually functional.
What does functional mean to you? From my POV I see lots of features in Java coming from the functional programming world, but perhaps I have a different understanding of the term to what you do.
I care about the aesthetics and the convenience that the tool provides. git-repo at least has a simple command to get all the latest stuff (repo sync). Git submodules is a mess in this regard. Just look at this stack overflow thread:
People are confused at how to do THE most basic command that you’d have to do every single day with a multi-repo environment. There’s debating in the comments about what flags you should actually use. No thanks.
There’s a lot of room for improvement in this space. git-repo isn’t widely used outside of aosp. Lots of organizations are struggling with proper tooling for this type of setup.
Also, the discussions are there because it's been more than a decade and the options have evolved over time.
Submodules are a bit clunky but the problem it solves is itself clunky. Bringing in another tool doesn't really feel like its going to reduce the burden.
I have yet to be in a situation where I blindly want to update all submodules. It is a conscious action, X has updated and I want to bring that change(s) in.
cd submodule, update, test, commit.
I haven't seen anything in this thread that really motivates me to learn another bespoke tool just for this. I'm sure it varies for different projects though.
Fast forward 15 years and see how the tooling this thread has been evolved and how many different tools people will have used and compare that to the stackoverflow post. I'm more inclined to invest time in git itself.
This is fine until you're working with hundreds of other developers. I believe the reason solutions like this exist is to abstract git away from most devs, because in (my experience) many enterprise devs have only rudimentary git knowledge.
Sure, the devs should "just learn git" - but the same argument applies to a lot of other tech nowadays. Ultimately most folks seem to want to close their ticket off and move to the next one.
Git submodules and git subtrees generally do not fit my org's needs - we have internal tooling similar to this. Happy to expand on that if you have questions.
The risk with that approach is that every other of the hundreds of developers will bring their own tool for X. So now you have hundreds of tools and everyone only knows a subset.
If there is a common operation that people get wrong or don't use often enough but still need to run regularly a five-line bash script will not only do the job it will actively help them learn the tool they are using.
Looks cool! Seems functionally similar to AOSP’s git-repo, but already feels more approachable with that simple yaml remote list.
What collaborative tool would you recommend using with vdm? AOSP has gerrit which is sort of specifically designed for this multi-remote meta setup. GitHub/GitLab don’t play nice with this type of environment.
This tool looks like "submodules, but lighter", while repo is "submodules, but heavier". Looks to me like the motivation is for dependencies that are not hard enough to justify a submodule.
Repo seriously sucks to use, but I also can't imagine many tools living up to AOSP-type workloads without being specifically designed for it. My gripe with repo is that it's really hard to pin the entire repo state if you have a bunch of prototype patches across multiple subrepos. I usually end up having to modify the XML directly.
>This tool looks like "submodules, but lighter", while repo is "submodules, but heavier". Looks to me like the motivation is for dependencies that are not hard enough to justify a submodule.
I think you nailed how I was feeling in much fewer words!
Thanks! That AOSP `repo` tool is one I'd not heard of, so thanks for sharing!
I actually haven't really put much thought into collaborative/mutlirepo development work using vdm -- the original intent was for it to strictly be a retriever of what the user specifies. I think the majority of both my frustration and complexity of other tools is because they're trying to solve for a lot more than at least I personally usually want to use them for. It's like, I just want a `pip install/requirements.txt/go.{mod,sum}` for any kind of tool, not just the language that takes up the majority of my codebase.
One of the thoughts I had, though, was to maybe add a field for each remote section called e.g. `try_local` that takes a filesystem path, and if that doesn't exist then fetch the remote. That way, your development workflow is exactly the same as usual -- developing a dependency is just doing work in the actual repo directory nearby. I'm not married to the idea though. I just REALLY don't want to have it be in the business of managing git-repos-in-git-repos, because vdm isn't really intended to be a Git tool, if that makes sense.
Had a lot of fun implementing the Huang histogram approach and the constant time approach by hand in a prior role.
Never saw the binary tree approach. And this article, being written in summer of 22, missed out on the 2D wavelet approach published later on that year.
Not the OP but have a look at the scikit-images and other scikit packages. Lots of different algorithms implemented. Also of course the OpenCV library.
I honestly recommend just writing them by hand in a simple language (C or Python), without relying on third party dependencies (just load an uncompressed grayscale image to use as your input).
OpenCV implementations of this stuff will be complex with lots of architecture specific optimizations. They will also have tons of branches for different image formats — you can keep things very simple by just using single channel uncompressed grayscale. The Huang histogram and Perrault/Hebert constant time papers are very approachable. They have pseudocode and visualizations. They’re not that tricky. You can sit down in a day and implement them without much headache.
This book, unlike the infamous “Dragon Book” for compilers, can be read cover to cover. The Dragon Book has great detail but it is a slog, especially in early chapters. So many students drop their first course on compilers every year because of the Dragon Book and not the actual concepts
>That is certainly better than killing these projects?
You sure?
Google obfuscates these moonshots (Waymo, Verily) in the “Other Bets” line in their 10-K. They lose money in the aggregate and the detailed financials for each entity aren’t revealed.
If a company like Waymo looked like it were on the path to profitability, Google wouldn’t hide the financials. They report the bare minimum (jumbled up with a bunch of unrelated stuff) because the numbers are grim.
Not sure, maybe I’m missing it, how does that impact spinning-off a project that Google no longer considers financially fruitful (it could still be financially viable but not at Google scale)?
Consumers are definitely demanding something like ChatGPT. Other companies are trying to ride the wave, and their attempts often feel forced as they’re trying to inject LLMs where they don’t really belong.
Define “required”. If every single legal department at every single major automotive company says “we must obtain ASIL-B certification for our gauge cluster software or we can’t sell cars”, does it matter if regulators don’t overtly mandate it? The legal environments of all of the major automotive markets make it a de facto requirement.
The ISO26262 was defined by the automakers themselves (almost all were represented in the committee) so yes, they want to follow it. There is no legal requirement. It does not specially help in case of litigation either.
Mr Beast is talking about actual experts in incredibly niche things, like baking giant cakes. Completely different type of person to the extent that "consultant" is just a total misnomer if you're used to the term in the land of F1000 corpo-speak. Mr Beast is probably reaching out to people guerilla-style that don't even have "consulting" firms -- which makes total sense if you're doing crazy stuff on YouTube.
reply