It's about the same as talking to yourself, LLMs simply agree with anything you say unless it is directly harmful. Definitely agree about talking to an abuser, though.
Sometimes people indeed just need validation and it helps them a lot, in that case LLMs can work. Alternatively, I assume some people just put the whole situation into words and that alone helps.
But if someone needs something else, they can be straight up dangerous.
> It's about the same as talking to yourself, LLMs simply agree with anything you say unless it is directly harmful.
They have world knowledge and are capable of explaining things and doing web searches. That's enough to help. I mean, sometimes people just need answers to questions.
In one way it's potentially worse than talking to yourself. Some part of you might recognize that you need to talk to someone other than yourself; an LLM might make you feel like you've done that, while reinforcing whatever you think rather than breaking you out of patterns.
Also, LLMs can have more resources and do some "creative" enabling of a person stuck in a loop, so if you are thinking dangerous things but lack the wherewithal to put them into action, an LLM could make you more dangerous (to yourself or to others).
You mean conceptually or to match it? Native components are pretty much impossible to match without actually using the native framework which provides them, so you need WinUI/WPF.
Win32 provides its own components which are basically Win95 style apps, and you can draw the components using some graphics APIs by yourself.
The whole native development area is a mess exactly because making your own (decent) renderer is a huge undertaking.
Agreed. The Qt framework, which is a cross-platform UI framework, does a decent job mimicking the native Win32 looks. Inside, the code is a giant mess. But on the outside, the API is very well thought out and easy to use.
But you are making false equivalence, the Win32 GUI API is decades out of date from modern UIs. I can use flutter and make a pixel perfect equivalent of the above UI in an hour, with the exact same responsiveness behavior on both windows tablets and desktop, and scales perfectly in high DPI displays. 3 hours if you want the toggle animation timing to be exactly the same.
I came from the WinForms world so don't pretend I don't understand Win32 programming. The fault lies with Microsoft for not investing in it more.
You talk like that is a bad thing. Win32 UI works, is fast, works everywhere even on ancient 640x480 server screens, safe mode and vnc in 16 colors without opengl, directx, Angle or vulkan.
Flutter is nicer to scale and maybe design but it is a massive overhead. Skia still has trouble with some drivers and causes lag or falls back to software rasterization. Hot replacement while coding is pretty neat though. It runs much better on mobile devices imho.
It works, and fast, but it is not portable. I would argue something like Qt is much more viable in $current_year for cross-platform development. Or if you're really dead-set on actual native components, then I guess wxWidgets works too.
Windows APIs docs for older stuff from Win32 is extremely barebones. WinRT is better, but still can be confusing.
I think AI is really great to start with the systems programming, as you can tailor the responses to your level, ask to solve specific build issues and so on. You can also ask more obscure questions and it will at least point you at the right direction.
Apple docs are also not the best for learning, so I think as a documentation browser with auto-generating examples AI is great.
I have an M2 Macbook Air with 8GB and it struggles even without the light development part, and latest macOS made it all much worse. To be honest I am impressed how fast the experience degraded as there was a lot of headroom.
Apple seemed to copy this one exactly as iCloud asks you the same all the time. Honestly these days Linux feels like the only sane platform as you can customize it properly.
I am a big fan of the command line, but running linux as my daily driver is like trying to daily a kit car -- it breaks all the time and i spend more time than i want fixing it. With macos, i get my beloved command line, nice hardware, and a reliable OS. Win win win.
> I am a big fan of the command line, but running linux as my daily driver is like trying to daily a kit car -- it breaks all the time and i spend more time than i want fixing it.
Linux powers the entire world. Billions if not tens of billions of devices. It doesn't "break all the time like a kit car". I switched my wife's desktop from Ubuntu to Debian about a year ago and I haven't heard a single complain. Not a single crash. She hardly reboots her computer. The thing is just rock solid and it needs to be: she works from home and she spends 8 hours+ on her (Linux) computer.
Fair. Last time I tried to daily Linux was 2016 with a crappy dell I had laying around, and I am pretty sure that I did not know what I was doing. I have been on Mac since 2012 and I tried windows in 2019 only to regret it, then went back to mac.
That is also far from my experience. I'm starting to think it's more about you than about the tech. I have 5 machines running Linux, and they never break (1 server and 4 VMs). I have 4 machines running Windows (3 physical, 1 VM), with zero problems for many years.
The rise of Electron was purely because you can share the codebase for real with the web app (for lots of apps it is their main focus) and get cross-platform support for free.
Native apps are not bad to develop when using Swift or C#, they are nice to use and their UI frameworks are fine, it's just that it requires a separate team. With Electron you need much less, simple as that.
> As for the rest: minor variations in traffic light positioning and corner radii are topical but hardly indicators of decaying platorms.
I think it shows how important the platform itself is to the company. The system settings app on macOS is literally slow to change the topic (the detail page is updated like ~500ms after clicking).
I personally love to develop desktop apps but business-wise they rarely make sense these days.
I don't think it's worth to include the session -- it would bloat the context too much anyway.
However, I do think that a higher-level description of every notable feature should be documented, along with the general implementation details. I use this approach for my side projects and it works fairly well.
The biggest question whether it will scale, I suspect that no, and I also suspect it is probably better to include nothing than a poor/disjointed/rare documentation of the sessions.
Sometimes people indeed just need validation and it helps them a lot, in that case LLMs can work. Alternatively, I assume some people just put the whole situation into words and that alone helps.
But if someone needs something else, they can be straight up dangerous.
reply