I would be deeply uncomfortable to work in an environment where one couldn't ask the author of a change for insights or rationale, because the author let some machine write it and therefore lacks any deeper understanding.

Good decision. Sounds like a decent human being!

Studying at a university is not a fancy job training.

Do whatever pays your bills, and learn what interests you. Sometimes the latter will help with the former, but it would be silly to depend on that.

Absolutely delusional.

code that is readable, auditable, and easy to port

Yeah C is the language that comes to everybody's mind reading that. /s

C's simplicity ...

Is that simplicity currently in the room with us?

... and widespread adoption make it the best choice for this philosophy.

Ah, the asbestos argument.

If people want to run the latest kernels on hardware that isn't maintained anymore, they need to toughen up and send patches ...

... or they stick to an old kernel for their unmaintained hardware.

Both is fine to me, but that entitled Boomer attitude of "nobody should have nice things, because that would challenge status quo" needs to die.

Donating to that shell script collection of this weird right-wing millionaire guy from Ruby on Rails.

Old people defending status quo.

Are we now just bumbling random words together?

Probably slop all the way down.

“apparently it’s a better safer C++, but I’m not going to switch because I can technically do all that stuff in C++”

The main difference between C++ and D was that (for most of the time in the past) D required a garbage collector.

So, D was a language with similar Algol-style syntax targeting a completely different niche from C++.

Trying to correct your quote, it should read something like "I’m not going to switch because I can't technically do all that stuff in D that I'm doing in C++" for it to make any sense.

There is not much to learn, so just do it? It's not a relevant investment that would require much thought.

Packages are usually provided by distribution packagers, not by the developers of the code itself.

The intent of what's being done is legal harassment.

I'm at a point where I reconsider my contribution if the project uses GitHub.

German

lol. Nothing is going to happen, and people will still be surprised about it.

I can see the point that too many program elements get too much color, but:

Suggesting to not color keywords and use a single color for the names of top-level elements at the same time simply doesn't mesh well.

I'm coloring keywords exactly because I do not want to invent a new color for each individual top-level element name or require backtracking from the (in his proposal) highlighted name to the (in his proposal) non-highlighted keyword preceding it.

Looking at the code example here I'd be open to have less things highlighted, but where to start? I guess parameter names, but apart from that?

Framework CEO has been busy last year losing trust, to be honest.

Jeez. Calm down.

What an absolute bunch of nonsense.

If that's were your performance problems come from, you are either a junior developer yourself or using some PHP-quality framework written by juniors.

Then do whatever you need to do to stop freaking out about other peoples' right to choose to not deal with LLMs.

Only if you like "eventual consistency", in the sense of "eventually, your data is consistently gone".