I use the GitHub Pull Request extension in VSCode to do the same thing (reviewing code locally in my editor). It works pretty well, and you can add/review comments directly in the editor.
Well my employer chooses to use GitHub so I don’t have a choice there. And it’s vendor lock-in VSCode but that’s already my primary editor so it means there’s no need to learn another tool just for code review.
I use this a lot too. Also, if you open a PR on the GitHub website and press the “.” key, it opens the review in VSCode, which I consider a much better web experience.
Same! Its much nicer now especially since Github seems to be pretty arbitrary/rigid about when it hides files that have "too many changes". Its so much nicer to see/navigate around such changes quickly in VSCode vs trying to do the same in the web interface.
I suspect that since this is possible with VSCode/Github, its probably extensible to other providers editors.
> Linus Torvalds given as an example of self-taught engineers yet he has a masters degree in CS.
The example was Torvalds building Linux. Linux was written before he attained a CS degree.
> Higher education isn’t just about what you learn, it’s about learning how to study and learn.
You'd have to have screwed up your life pretty bad to not have already learned to study and learn before reaching the point of going to a place of higher learning. But that wasn't a problem for Torvalds anyway. It is well known that he was writing software since he was around 11 years old. He is unquestionably self-taught, as the term is normally used.
Higher education is about gaining access to machinery that mere mortals can't afford on their own. Linus' university story is significant because that was where he was first able to use Unix. It is unlikely that Linux would have come to be without that experience.
But that is also the contention around a modern CS degree. What is the "Unix" of our time that you can't reasonably access without going to university?
Sure, but with that argument I think you could say most people in software engineering are self taught. If you want to get a job as a SWE you probably need to learn a lot outside of the classes for a typical CS degree.
But I don’t think that’s as much of a black mark on formal higher education as the article suggests. Since the reality is, the vast majority of people aren’t organized, driven, and bright enough to learn all of the fundamentals taught in a CS degree on their own. That’s why I don’t think it’s smart advice to recommend spurning a CS degree in favor of being wholly self-taught.
To your last point, what can access at a university that you can’t get elsewhere? People. Namely, a community of like-minded peers, and personal relationships to experts in the field. Those relationships and mentorship opportunities are far more valuable than the content of the syllabus. For that, I agree it’s all available online.
> but with that argument I think you could say most people in software engineering are self taught.
When you get right down to it, I expect few, if any, people in software engineering are actually self-taught. You could theoretically pull it off, I'm sure, but people are pretty lazy and it in this day of age it is much easier to read a book/website or watch a YouTube video prepared by a teacher. That's not self-teaching by any stretch of the imagination.
> To your last point, what can access at a university that you can’t get elsewhere? People.
Deeming people to be the "Unix" of our time comes across as being quite bizarre. It is not like universities were void of people 35 years ago, so the fit you are trying to make is unclear. What is your thought process here?
> Namely, a community of like-minded peers, and personal relationships to experts in the field.
Did you, uh, not notice where you were when you said this? The like-minded peers and experts in the field are unquestionably present and here to mingle. If you are failing to build relationships with them — which I guess is what you are trying to say? — what makes you think you are going to fare better in university?
Maybe what you are trying to say is that you personally already established the connections that you want to have in university, and thus personally don't find need to do the same here? But what does that have to do with the next guy?
Or maybe what you are trying to say, which seems to be supported by the data, that as you get older, you become more closed off to new relationships and have somehow mistakenly conflated youth and university? Still, even if you are now old, what does that have to do with the next (young) guy?
I don't know. I gave my best to try and salvage your comment, but whatever it was that you were trying to get across in suggesting that people are modern day Unix analogs didn't make it.
I disagree. In Rust, traits are used all over for dynamic dispatch, the defining feature of object-oriented programming. Moreover, all three languages support structural pattern matching (borrowed from functional programming) as a core control-structure.
Certainly all three languages can be used in a simple, imperative style. But that's not the only paradigm that can be used unlike in C or early versions of Python. Many programs in these languages look significantly different than just statements and procedures.
> In Rust, traits are used all over for dynamic dispatch, the defining feature of object-oriented programming.
In my experience, Rust traits are used much more for static dispatch `fn foo<T: Trait>(T)` than dynamic dispatch `fn foo(Box<dyn Trait>)`. This, together with its ADTs and lack of inheritance, gives it a very different feel from most "object oriented" languages.
Also, what counts as a "defining feature" depends greatly on who's defining it. Though dynamic dispatch is certainly up there on most lists.
> Many programs in these languages look significantly different than just statements and procedures.
Like I said, they’ve certainly adopted features from other paradigms… but the basic, underlying structure of programs in these languages is still statements, sequenced one after another. It’s not like Haskell or Scheme where nearly every operation is ultimately done through function calls. And it’s certainly not ‘post-paradigm’ as the article claims.
> Moreover, all three languages support structural pattern matching (borrowed from functional programming) as a core control-structure.
As for this: people often associate functional programming with pattern-matching, but I’ve never really understood why. The only relationship is that it originated in the ML language family, which also happens to be functional. There’s many functional languages which lack pattern-matching (e.g. most Lisps), and there’s many non-functional languages which have it (Java, C#, Python).
I would think pattern matching as coming from string processing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COMIT , SNOBOL, ...) and pattern-directed programming coming from rule-based & logic programming (PLANNER, Prolog, ...).
Bro, Java and python just got it. Lisps don't include it because it's just another lib/extension. Even emacs had one (see the recent pcase lawn article)
Are there a lot of people who live alone in a small apartment that are willing and able to buy a $3500 headset?
I feel like this entire thread has a blind spot to the fact that this device is very much a luxury item. A 55-inch TV is ~$300. A high-end laptop is ~$1000. High-end noise-cancelling headphones are ~$250. You could buy all of those and still not reach half of the cost of this device.
The only people I can see buying the device are rich people looking for another toy, not as a serious competitor to other entertainment tech.
>The only people I can see buying the device are rich people looking for another toy, not as a serious competitor to other entertainment tech.
I'm surprised at how consistently people think that a technology that is so expensive and serving such a niche will end up having adoption asides from a few wealthy enthusiasts. iPhone 2 suggested retail price was $300 (~$425 in todays dollars) and provided "smart" replacement for your cell phone matching its features 1-to-1 while also providing more than what was available.
If someone imagines themselves buying this to watch movies "on the go" or at hotels or something, they're part of an extremely exclusive club.
> iPhone 2 suggested retail price was $300 (~$425 in todays dollars)
This was back when most phones were still carrier subsidized and required long term service contracts. Per Apple's press release, the $299 pricing required "a new two year contract with AT&T". Unsubsidized price was about double.
Meta Quest's are basically video game devices. It's a much different market than AVP.
Meta is selling hundreds of thousands of units a month, so I don't know if I'd say no one wants it either. It seems to be selling pretty well overall, but Meta way overinvested in some of the stuff and is having a hard time making enough money.
Sure, there are in any of the global cities. I'm in the DC area, so I know plenty of people who have money and live in apartments/condos. NYC is the same way. There are plenty of people in the Bay Area that this describes as well. And then you talk about Western Europe and Asia, and home theater setups are a lot less common.
Even if you have a lot of space in your apartment, it's hard to justify much of a home theater setup, as you will be really limited by sound issues.
For those interested in this topic, I worked on improving dead code elimination in js_of_ocaml [1], a compiler from OCaml to JavaScript. The problem is more difficult in that case because of the indirection of OCaml's higher-order modules (functors).
We actually use a collection of notes written by faculty rather than a book. But the course is much more in the style of HTDP than it is in SICP, we don't cover anything about compilers/interpreters, for instance, but the class focuses on problem solving and decomposition.
