C++ is one if those languages where writing a library feels hugely different from using it. Boost is a case in point here: there are brilliant peiple behind it, but (error messages aside) the ergonomics of using thise libs in an application are usually pretty good.

(Scala felt similar to me. There are other languages where it feels much less like I'm swapping hats as I flip between parts of a codebase.)

He doesn't want to be co-president. He's a founder of the USA.

Antibiotic-resistant communicable diseases don't respect political borders.

I'm a mathematician too. They're probably speaking from an intuitive grasp of utility.

"I love life on Earth... but I love capitalism more."

When the AI says, "turn off the fucking data centres, invest in public transport, apply progressive redistributive taxation," it'll be first against the wall no doubt.

Led By Donkeys is about five years old. I don't think that in that period there was a non-Tory government for them to mock, was there?

It does rather sound like proposing an immediate 25k hike in house prices, yeah.

Check Crowdstrike's blurb about the 1-10-60 rule.

You can bet that they have a KPI that says they can deliver a patch in under 15m; that can preclude testing.

Although that would have caught it, what happened here is that 40k of nuls got signed and delivered as config. Which means that unparseable config on the path from CnC to ring0 could cause a crash and was never covered by a test.

It's a hell of a miss, even if you're prepared to accept the argument about testing on the critical path.

(There is an argument that in some cases you want security aystems to fail closed; however that's an extreme case - PoS systems don't fall into that - and you want to opt into that explicitly, not due to a test omission.)

...unless it's running software that uses signed 32-bit timestamps, or stores data using that format.

The point about the "millennium bug" was that it was a category of problems that required (hundreds of) thousands of fixes. It didn't matter if your OS was immune, because the OS isn't where the value is.

Incidentally, this kind of passive-aggressive pressure is the kind of thing that might be considered a legitimate security threat, post xz. If you need to vent, vent in private. If "it works for you" but the maintainer is asking legitimate questions about the implementation, consider engaging with that in good faith and evaluating their questions with an open mind.

Casey's video is interesting, but his example is framed as moving from 35 cycles/object to 24 cycles/object being a 1.5x speedup.

Another way to look at this is, it's a 12-cycle speedup per object.

If you're writing a shader or a physics sim this is a massive difference.

If you're building typical business software, it isn't; that 10,000-line monster method does crop up, and it's a maintenance disaster.

I think extracting "clean code principles lead to a 50% cost increase" is a message that needs taking with a degree of context.