标签：#RAM

I am going to start with a number most people will not say out loud. 1,200 applications. That is how many jobs I applied to over 3 to 4 months trying to switch from a service-based company to a product-based one. I had spreadsheets, saved searches, and browser tabs I kept telling myself I would close tomorrow. Some nights I was applying at 11pm just to hit my self-imposed daily quota. Out of 1,200, I got around 10 interview calls. Out of 10, I got 4 offers. The applications got me in the room. What happened inside the room is what this post is actually about. The One Thing That Followed Me Into Every Interview At my previous company I worked on a lot of things, but one project came up in literally every single interview. We had a Python module that parsed ASAM MDF files. Binary log files from vehicles and sensors, often gigabytes in size. The parser was painfully slow. Around 8 minutes to load a single file. The kind of slow where you start it, go get lunch, and hope it is done when you come back. I rewrote it in Rust. Load time dropped from 8 minutes to 12 seconds. 40x improvement on GB-scale files. Every interviewer stopped me the moment I mentioned it. The questions were real engineering questions, not generic resume stuff. "Why Rust over Go or C++?" "How did you profile the bottleneck first?" "What was your testing strategy when rewriting something this critical?" "What would you do differently now?" I would spend 20 to 30 minutes just on this one project. Not because they were grilling me. Because it was a genuine conversation between two people who cared about the problem. Here is why it worked: I had lived with it. I hit walls in the rewrite that took days to figure out. The context, the wrong turns, the eventual solution were all stored in my head. When a follow-up question came, the answer was just there. You cannot fake that. A first follow-up question exposes a tutorial project immediately. Real work under real constraints creates a depth that no amount o

I’ve been making massive headway on tgo, my TypeScript to Go compiler library, but it is forcing me to confront some hard realities about how I manage systems, AI, and even people. The Cost of Scaling Complexity Since the last devlog, I’ve added full support for Node libraries— fs , path , process , and a few others. Right now, I’m in the trenches trying to compile Lodash, argparse , and date-fns . I pushed date-fns to the side for a minute because Lodash is proving to be the perfect stress test. It is, frankly, obnoxious. In some cases, the code is just very poorly written. Lodash has 316 different entry points. Right now, 122 are failing. But dealing with this massive, complex library has forced me to completely overhaul my test runner. I’ve built it so that you can choose specific entry points and compile only what you need—similar to how ES bundle works. I’ve also implemented heavy caching. If you are continually rebuilding, it won't re-compile the source to Go every single time; it just handles the binary compilation unless something actually changed. It’s significantly faster. But as this project scales, the sheer complexity is threatening to break the system—and by the system, I mean the AI I am using to build it. Process is Survival I do most of this development through AI, and getting an LLM to consistently output good software engineering without breaking existing features is incredibly difficult. I was constantly blowing out the context window. Even at 200,000 tokens, it wasn't enough. By the time the AI figured out what to do, it would start summarizing the context and immediately start doing a terrible job. This forced me to narrow down all possibilities. I realized there are really only four things I am ever asking the AI to do: Update the test runner. Fix a bug. Implement a new feature. Work on a library. That’s it. I defined strict workflows for those four pathways. If I ask it to fix a bug, it has to run the specific test, read the JavaScript, read

JavaScript Array Search Methods What are Array Search Methods? Array Search Methods are used to: Find the position (index) of an element. Check whether an element exists. Retrieve an element that satisfies a condition. Find the index of an element that matches a condition. Search from the beginning or the end of an array. Common Array Search Methods Method Purpose Returns indexOf() Finds the first occurrence of a value Index or -1 lastIndexOf() Finds the last occurrence of a value Index or -1 includes() Checks whether a value exists true / false find() Finds the first matching element Element or undefined findIndex() Finds the index of the first matching element Index or -1 findLast() (ES2023) Finds the last matching element Element or undefined findLastIndex() (ES2023) Finds the last matching index Index or -1 1. Array.indexOf() Definition The indexOf() method searches an array for a specified value and returns the index of its first occurrence . If the value is not found, it returns -1 . Syntax array . indexOf ( searchElement ) array . indexOf ( searchElement , startIndex ) Parameters Parameter Description searchElement Value to search for startIndex (optional) Index where the search starts Returns Index of the first matching element. -1 if not found. Internal Working Suppose: let fruits = [ " Apple " , " Orange " , " Mango " , " Orange " ]; Memory: Index 0 → Apple 1 → Orange 2 → Mango 3 → Orange When: fruits . indexOf ( " Orange " ); JavaScript starts from index 0 : Apple ❌ Orange ✅ Found Stops immediately and returns: 1 Example let fruits = [ " Apple " , " Orange " , " Banana " ]; console . log ( fruits . indexOf ( " Orange " )); Output 1 Example - Not Found let fruits = [ " Apple " , " Orange " ]; console . log ( fruits . indexOf ( " Mango " )); Output -1 Example - Start Position let fruits = [ " Apple " , " Orange " , " Banana " , " Orange " ]; console . log ( fruits . indexOf ( " Orange " , 2 )); Output 3 Real-Time Example Suppose an e-commerce site wants to

What is an Array? An Array is a special object in JavaScript used to store multiple values in a single variable. Instead of creating separate variables, let student1 = " John " ; let student2 = " David " ; let student3 = " Alex " ; we can use an array: let students = [ " John " , " David " , " Alex " ]; Each value inside the array is called an element , and every element has an index starting from 0 . Index : 0 1 2 ------------------------- Array : | John | David | Alex | ------------------------- 1. Array length Definition The length property returns the total number of elements present in an array. It is not a function . It is a property of an array object. It is also writable, meaning you can change the length to increase or decrease the array size. Syntax array . length To modify the array length: array . length = newLength ; Parameters None. Returns Returns a number representing the total number of elements in the array. Internal Working Consider this array: let fruits = [ " Apple " , " Orange " , " Mango " ]; Memory representation: Index 0 → Apple 1 → Orange 2 → Mango length = 3 When JavaScript creates the array, it internally stores a special property: { 0 : "Apple" , 1 : "Orange" , 2 : "Mango" , length: 3 } Whenever you access: fruits . length JavaScript simply returns the value stored in the length property. It does not count the elements every time. This makes length very fast. Example 1 let fruits = [ " Apple " , " Orange " , " Banana " ]; console . log ( fruits . length ); Output 3 Example 2 - Updating Length let numbers = [ 10 , 20 , 30 , 40 ]; numbers . length = 2 ; console . log ( numbers ); Output [ 10 , 20 ] JavaScript removes the remaining elements. Example 3 - Increasing Length let colors = [ " Red " , " Blue " ]; colors . length = 5 ; console . log ( colors ); Output [ "Red" , "Blue" , empty × 3 ] The new positions become empty slots . Real-Time Example Imagine an E-commerce Shopping Cart . let cart = [ " Laptop " , " Mouse " , " Keyboard " ]; co

A String in JavaScript is a sequence of characters used to store text. let course = " JavaScript " ; 1. String length Purpose Returns the total number of characters in a string. Syntax string . length Example let company = " OpenAI " ; console . log ( company . length ); Output 6 Real-Time Example Checking password length before registration. 2. String charAt() Purpose Returns the character at a specified index. Syntax string . charAt ( index ) Example let city = " Madurai " ; console . log ( city . charAt ( 3 )); Output u Internal Logic M a d u r a i 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Index 3 contains "u". 3. String charCodeAt() Purpose Returns the Unicode value (UTF-16 code) of a character. Example let letter = " A " ; console . log ( letter . charCodeAt ( 0 )); Output 65 More Examples console . log ( " a " . charCodeAt ( 0 )); Output: 97 4. String codePointAt() Purpose Returns the Unicode code point of a character. Useful for emojis and special symbols. Example let emoji = " 😊 " ; console . log ( emoji . codePointAt ( 0 )); Output 128522 Difference console . log ( " 😊 " . charCodeAt ( 0 )); console . log ( " 😊 " . codePointAt ( 0 )); codePointAt() gives the actual Unicode value. 5. String concat() Purpose Combines two or more strings. Example let firstName = " Annapoorani " ; let lastName = " Kadhiravan " ; let fullName = firstName . concat ( lastName ); console . log ( fullName ); Output Annapoorani Kadhiravan Alternative console . log ( firstName + lastName ); 6. String at() Purpose Returns character at a specific position. Supports negative indexing. Example let language = " JavaScript " ; console . log ( language . at ( 0 )); console . log ( language . at ( - 1 )); Output J t 7. String [ ] Purpose Access characters using bracket notation. Example let laptop = " Dell " ; console . log ( laptop [ 0 ]); console . log ( laptop [ 2 ]); Output D l Difference console . log ( laptop . charAt ( 0 )); console . log ( laptop [ 0 ]); Both return same result. 8. String slice() Purpose Extract

submitted by /u/UltimaN3rd [link] [留言]

submitted by /u/fagnerbrack [link] [留言]

The code runs. That's not the question. There's a failure mode with AI-generated code...

TL;DR — When the spec is good, implementation needs less model. I started using a top-tier model to write the spec and a cheaper, faster one to implement it — still using the strong model, just spending it on the spec instead of the implementation. The gain isn't some magic prompt phrasing; it's the context: explicit business rules, audited project constraints, a defined output contract. That's systems engineering — the discipline of anyone who's kept real software alive, whatever their stack. Every backend dev knows the scene: the Swagger is out of date, the last hotfix shipped without a unit test, and the README.md documents a command nobody's used in six months. The code works. The docs lie. And the gap between the two is exactly where AI — and we — start to go wrong. I've spent the last few months developing with AI for real inside production projects, not tutorial greenfield. My takeaway was less about which model to use and more about a shift that already has a name: the move from prompt engineering to context engineering . The difference isn't semantic. Prompt engineering treats the problem as writing — finding the magic phrase. Context engineering treats it as what it always was: a systems engineering problem . And it's where my backend background applied most directly — though anyone who's kept a real system alive has the same instinct. The experiment that convinced me Let me start with the evidence, because that's what made me take this seriously. My reflex, for a long time, was to reach for the strongest model for everything — more expensive, smarter, fewer errors. Makes sense on paper. In practice, I saw something else. When the task's specification is well done — explicit business rules, audited project constraints, a defined output format — the model capability needed for implementation drops sharply. Enough to split the work by stage: I started using a top-tier model (currently Opus) to write the spec , and a cheaper, faster model (Sonnet) to implemen

I started my career in the late 2010s, and I have had a front-row seat to the growth of the industry that has given me everything: software engineering. Looking back over the last decade, I have mixed feelings about some of the calls I made. And I am seeing the same patterns play out again now. So for engineers who are confused about where this is headed and how to navigate it, here is how I think about it. Generalist SWEs were a product of cheap money The late 2010s, I saw an huge amount of startup funding, globally. Flipkart, Snapdeal, Jugnoo, and hundreds of others were scaling hard and one hiring pattern I saw was that: everyone wanted generalist software engineers. People who could easily get upto speed across the stack.- backend, frontend, infra, deployment and simply ship. Building software was expensive. Automation was still low. Kubernetes had just gone mainstream. Shipping still meant a surprising amount of manual work: SSH-ing into servers, copying artifacts around, running mvn builds by hand, debugging deployments straight in production, duct-taping infrastructure that today you would never touch. Companies fought over engineers who maximized feature throughput. Breadth was a premium, because every extra engineer increased the rate at which software got built. It helped because the money was also free and VCs rewarded growth over efficiency, and hiring software engineers in bulk was the easiest way to spend it. Pull up a resume from an engineer who started around that time and you will usually see the same shape: a long list of technologies and frameworks, broad and adaptable, but rarely deep in any one thing. There was no incentive to go deep. LLMs Changed The Dynamics LLMs did not kill software engineering. It compressed the cost of implementation. The work that got hit first was the work that was already standardized: CRUD apps; API integration and glue code; Framework-heavy backend work; Frontend scaffolding; Standard architectural patterns. What use

This week, Instagram launched a series of new features for its smart TV app that are all designed to get people to spend more time on the platform through the biggest screens in their homes. In addition to vertical Reels, Instagram for TV - which is currently available for Amazon Fire TV, Google TV, and […]

submitted by /u/patrickdevivo [link] [留言]

This is a complete, copy‑pasteable guide for shipping a backend app to a single Linux server using Docker Compose , with a GitHub Actions pipeline that builds the image, scans it, and deploys it over SSH. It is written to be language- and framework-agnostic . The examples use a Node/TypeScript API with PostgreSQL, Redis, and a background worker, but the same shape works for Python/Django, Go, Java/Spring, Ruby, etc. Anywhere you see your-app , your-org , your-server-ip , or example.com , substitute your own values. Every file is included in full, and every non-obvious line is explained. The last section — Common errors and how to fix them — is the part most guides skip, and it is the part that will actually save your afternoon. All of it comes from a real deployment, mistakes included. 1. The mental model (read this first) Before any YAML, understand the shape of what we're building. There are only three places anything lives: Your Git repository the single source of truth. Your code, your Dockerfile , your docker-compose.prod.yml , and your CI/CD workflows all live here. You only ever edit things here. A container registry (we use GHCR, GitHub's built-in registry) — a warehouse for the built application image. CI builds the image and pushes it here. Your server (a plain Linux VPS) pulls the image from the registry and runs it. It holds exactly two files: the compose file (copied from your repo by the pipeline) and a secrets file ( .env ) that never leaves the server. The flow, end to end: You push to main │ ▼ GitHub Actions: build image ──► push to registry ──► scan image │ ▼ GitHub Actions: SSH to server ──► pull image ──► run migrations ──► start app ──► health-check The single most important rule: the server is disposable . You never hand-edit files on the server, because the pipeline overwrites them from the repo on every deploy. If you fix something by editing on the server, the next deploy silently erases your fix. Edit in the repo, commit, push. (I learned t

"There were employees doing things like, 'Claude is so helpful for me — it analyzes my calendar and my email and puts together a plan for me,'" he says. "That person was spending at a run rate of $30,000 a year for this."

Code generation tools are powerful and can significantly accelerate development work. Their main limitation is not capability, but context. Without access to organizational knowledge, internal conventions, and system-specific patterns, generated output often requires careful verification. This is why generation tools work best when paired with AI code search, as the latter provides immediate visibility into the existing codebase, making it easier to align AI-generated changes with the realities of the system. In regulated environments, the adoption model may look different. Security or compliance constraints can restrict the use of cloud-based code generation. AI code search still improves developer efficiency across implementation, review, and documentation workflows by enabling fast navigation and comprehension of large multi-repository codebases. What is AI code intelligence, and how does it help in practice? Code intelligence tools help developers find and understand existing code. If a search returns a poor result, the developer simply searches again. Nothing changes in your codebase. Code search also integrates without friction. No new review processes, no changes to CI/CD, no new permissions. Generation tools require policies for AI-written code that stall many pilots before they produce data. Clear metrics for measuring AI code intelligence An AI code search assistant only reads your code, which makes it much easier to measure its impact. You can track simple things like: • how long it takes to find the right piece of code • how quickly new developers get up to speed • how many hours the team spends searching each week If your team of 20 developers each spends 5 hours weekly understanding code, that equals 100 hours of engineering time. At $75 per hour, that’s $360,000 per year. Assume 10% reduction recovers $36,000, a realistic input for an AI ROI framework for tech teams. Faster path to Phase 3 expansion Code generation tools face tough questions from secu

The agents were doing exactly what I told them to. That was the problem. I'd built a pipeline where AI agents could take a spec file, implement a feature, run the tests, review the result, and commit — without me writing a line of code. It mostly worked. Dozens of features shipped. But I kept reviewing the output and feeling like something was off. Not broken. Just subtly wrong in a way that was hard to name. I spent a while blaming the models. Then the prompts. Then the validation steps. Eventually I had to sit with the obvious: the agents were implementing exactly what I'd written. My specs were underspecified. The bottleneck was always me, at the planning stage. The thing most people throw away There's something that feels right about vibe coding. You're operating at the level of intent — describing what you want and letting the model handle the mechanics. That part is genuinely useful. But watch what most people do with the output: Traditional development: Source code → Compiler → Binary (keep the source; regenerate binary anytime) Vibe coding done wrong: Prompt → LLM → Generated code (delete the prompt; commit the code) You've shredded the source and carefully version-controlled the binary. The prompt — your structured description of what you wanted, why, and what "correct" meant — is the valuable artifact. The generated code is what compiles from it. When you discard the prompt and commit only the output, you've lost the thing that actually mattered. The practical consequence shows up six months later: you're staring at code you wrote and spending twenty minutes reverse-engineering your own intent. The spec would have been a thirty-second read. What a spec-driven pipeline is I built what I call an SDLC (Software Development Lifecycle) harness — a system where instead of writing code directly, you write a spec describing what needs to be built, and AI agents handle the implementation, testing, review, and documentation. The spec is the source. The code is what

https://www.omegasyntax.com/domino/ Series of articles about Domino Tiling problem. submitted by /u/eugene [link] [留言]

Data Oriented Design is the practice of building code that's optimized for the hardware it runs on. Entity Component Systems help writing DOD-friendly code by laying out otherwise allocation-heavy game data in contiguous arrays. A challenge in gamedev however is that lots of game data is stored and accessed as hierarchies that change frequently, which makes them notoriously difficult to store as contiguous arrays. This article goes over a number of techniques an Entity Component System can use to integrate hierarchies with the core datamodel in a way that improves the performance of the ECS. Written mostly for gamedev, but also applies to other hierarchy-heavy applications, like UI. submitted by /u/ajmmertens [link] [留言]

Every day I see more projects where a layer-per-entity approach is created by default: UserService , UserRepository , OrderService , OrderRepository , and so on. My issue is not with layering itself, but with how these layers are used. In theory, a Service should represent application behavior: something that encapsulates real use cases or meaningful interactions with external systems (payments, emails, APIs, etc.). Something with enough significance to justify being isolated. A Repository , in theory, should exist when there is real complexity in data access: multiple data sources, non-trivial persistence logic, evolving storage mechanisms, etc. However, in practice, they often degrade into something else: services that simply delegate calls repositories that are thin wrappers around an ORM interfaces with no meaningful alternative implementation At that point, the abstraction starts to lose its purpose. Why not use the ORM directly when there is no real complexity to hide? Why do we default to intermediate layers that don’t truly represent either a service or a repository in their original sense? It often feels like they add files, indirection, and noise without improving clarity. I’m not saying these layers are inherently bad. I’m trying to understand why they are so often applied by default, even when they don’t serve their actual purpose. Does this approach really improve clarity, or does it just introduce unnecessary complexity? For example, instead of organizing code around generic services per model, we could structure it around explicit use cases for concrete system actions. These would still live within an application/service layer in the sense described by Fowler, but without forcing a generic ModelService structure for everything. The goal would be to design around intent rather than around structural templates—so the code reflects what the system does , not just how it is layered . submitted by /u/Character-Method-720 [link] [留言]