> Early in the development process, when testing the incomplete application, I remembered that Subversion (the version control system after CVS, before Git) had a –dry-run option.
> I remembered how helpful that was, so I decided to add it to my command as well.
He mentions the reason he added it, and it's a compelling enough story to be true.
Of course and I am not trying to point fingers. But I do think it's interesting because it's also possible that it is confabulation. Not lying, but genuinely constructing coherent explanations for decisions whose true origins are different than we recall. I think working with coding agents has already made this immensely more common.
I had the equivalent of --dry-run in my kdecvs-build script from 2003 (where it was called --pretend) so it's not that spontaneous an idea that it must have been dreamed up by an AI.
Any time you have a script that needs to run for a long time or might involve destructive actions, having a way to run the script in a "tell me what you would do without actually doing it" mode is a fairly obvious user story to throw in.
Again, it's completely possible that OP and you are the wonderful exceptions (untouched and uninspired by coding agents) that have been using these patterns for as long as you can remember. My comment revolved around the psychological phenomenon, not whether dry-run is a clever/novel idea. It's about how we might tell ourselves stories about the origin of our ideas when working with those tools.
And my point is simply that if it were obvious enough an idea that I thought of it after initially using my tool, you probably will want to look for more realistic examples of where a person thinks they came up with an idea that was really prompted back to them in an AI chat.
This isn't something with surprising nuance like how a McDonald's milkshake serves a non-food "job to be done" during a shopper's morning commute. As evidenced by all the others in this thread pointing out other tools that do similar things, it's a fairly obvious idea to come up with after actually using a new tool.
You'd be more likely to learn about it doing product comparisons of other tools, although since there is a lot of common art for AI training to draw from, yes it is also possible to hear about it from your AI first.
> And as a consequence, C# can pack the value types directly in the generic data structure, instead of holding references to heap-allocated objects.
> This is very important both for cache locality and for minimizing garbage collector pressure.
How is C# just not straight-up faster than Java then? Instead of both language punching around the same weight on benchmarks? Doesn't cache locality like, have a huge effect on performance?
I have no answer except that Java Hotspot JIT seems to be almost too good to be true. I guess it's my way of saying I would also like to know why C# isn't just plain faster than Java.
> Amazon / Google / Microsoft offer managed versions of the database and make bank on it. Easily millions in revenue. Original creator / company doesn't get anything, and the hyperscaler isn't obliged to pay.
This isn't what is happening. A company called Garantia Data renamed themselves to Redis Labs and acquired the Redis trademark. They're not the original company, and they used a naming trick to present as if they are official (they are now, and nothing they did was illegal).
No. Scrollbars are besides the content, AI-generated content is the content. An article absolutely deserves to be called out if the author has the gall to AI-generate it and then share it on HN (or elsewhere).
I always do this. There's usually one field that you can put at the start that never changes. But the field at the end will keep changing as you add more fields to the SELECT list.
SELECT
a
,b
,c
,d
FROM
Customers
ORDER BY
b
,c DESC
Your argument is that writers do this because of "economics", but to the detriment of readers. I don't see how this extends only to HN readers. It applies to all readers in general.
This is awful. The alternative isn't "no name", it's a full and unambiguous name (even if it's a mouthful). If you can't come up with a good short name, stick with the long one.
> Spaces should be used to line up the code so that the root keywords all end on the same character boundary.
SELECT file_hash
FROM file_system
WHERE file_name = '.vimrc';
This style is annoying and I wish it gained less traction. It looks neat but it puts so much burden on the query writer, especially when you modify the query and all of the sudden you need to indent multiple lines just to make them all align. You know what's neat and still easy to modify/diff? Just indent a new line for each row.
SELECT
file_hash
FROM
file_system
WHERE
file_name = '.vimrc';
This. Relying on developers manually trying to follow a style guide is a recipe for not having a consistent style. Instead something like pgFormatter should be used. I'm not sure what the state of SQL formatters and IDE support is these days. Not sure how many command based options there are.
And people who use things like Datagrip or other IDEs will probably format with their IDE's preferences unless there is a plugin for things like pgFormatter. This works well if there is a company mandated editor/IDE, but not so well when you have developers across various editors and IDEs.
Automatic formatters and pretty printers never seem to be able to make the exceptions necessary for me to use them. For example, I want the contents of all my HTML tags to be formatted as one long line (think of <p> tags), except when they happen to contain a SQL statement which I want to remain formatted exactly as written.
I have never seen a syntax highlighter for SQL that actually covers the real deal from Postgres dialect. Basic stuff is covered and then suddenly you use a combination that isn't covered and the colors are all wrong. This is even true for pgadmin, which is ironic.
Unlike most programming languages, SQL built in syntax is huuuuuge and it is very hard to cover it all, especially as it varies with the dialect.
I use Jetbrains and there is at least full coverage for MSSQL in my experience, which is a huge dialect -- not only syntax highlighting but full IDE features like autocompletion and target name refactoring etc.
I find splitting out over lines like that harder to read because the table-like columns now overlap with each other and aren't aligned with the keyword they belong to.
> I remembered how helpful that was, so I decided to add it to my command as well.
He mentions the reason he added it, and it's a compelling enough story to be true.
reply