标签：#RAM

submitted by /u/Dear-Economics-315 [link] [留言]

I Built a Language Where AI Calls Are Sandboxed by Default The 30-line Python problem Last month I needed a script that reads server logs, classifies errors with an LLM, summarizes them, and writes a report. In Python, it looked like this: Import the SDK Initialize the client Handle the API response Parse JSON Add asyncio.gather() because sequential calls took 8 seconds Write a custom sandbox because I don't trust LLMs with exec and file writes Package it in Docker because requirements.txt always breaks on the server 80 lines later , it worked. But it felt wrong. I wasn't building logic — I was plumbing. So I asked myself: What if AI operations were language primitives, not library calls? Meet Pipe Pipe is a small runtime (~10 MB, single binary, zero dependencies) that treats summarize , translate , classify , and ask as first-class citizens — on the same level as + , sort , or len . Try it Browser Playground (WASM, no install): pipe-lang.com Source: github.com/MachuraHarry/pipe Docs: pipe-lang.com/docs

A deep dive into AURA, the desktop AR companion that watches your face, reads your hand gestures, and — in a previous life — took 35 seconds just to say "hello." So There's a Glowing Orb on My Desktop Now Let me introduce you to AURA , a desktop companion whose entire personality can be summarized as: "I will float on top of your windows, stare at your webcam, and silently form opinions about your code and your life choices." Per its own README, AURA is built to look at your screen, evaluate your facial expressions, and judge your open browser tabs in real time. No notes. No euphemisms. That's just the mission statement, printed in broad daylight, by the people who made it. Bold. Deranged. Kind of iconic. It's a semi-transparent holographic orb pretending very hard to be a sentient biological interface, the way a Roomba pretends to have feelings when it gets stuck under the couch. It changes color depending on whether you look focused, happy, or the specific flavor of "deeply stressed by my own code" that only a 2am debugging session can produce. It does not, notably, offer to help you fix the bug. It just watches. Like a nature documentary, except you're the nature. Chapter 1: The Dark Ages (a.k.a. "Please, Just Let Me Open One App") Before the great rewrite, launching AURA was less "spin up an AI assistant" and more "sit down, we need to talk about your life choices while the computer thinks." It behaved less like software and more like a extremely judgmental houseplant that needed 35 seconds of silent contemplation before it would even acknowledge your existence. Here's the greatest hits album of suffering, straight from the project's own changelog, presented with the reverence it deserves: The 35-Second Cold Start Penalty — On launch, the app synchronously imported PyTorch, EasyOCR, MediaPipe, PyAutoGUI, Pygame, and the Windows speech drivers, all before doing anything useful, like a chef who insists on individually greeting every vegetable before starting dinne

I wanted to share my thoughts about a topic that's been on my mind for a while. submitted by /u/crok91 [link] [留言]

submitted by /u/Dear-Economics-315 [link] [留言]

submitted by /u/Either_Collection349 [link] [留言]

# suddo (superuser don't do) Sometimes AI needs to run commands with sudo (installing a package, reading a file in /etc, etc). But most MCP clients don't support creating a PTY, so you end up having to open a separate terminal just to type your password: claude code $ sudo cat /etc/hosts AI: blabla password: > ! sudo cat /etc/hosts AI: please open a new terminal. Annoying. With suddo: AI calls the tool `execute_command` The server asks you, rejects, or allows it based on your rules If allowed: If you don't have a valid sudo timestamp, it asks for your password The command runs safely More detail and usage: https://github.com/sunu15712/suddo

I often see people using the term "namespace" incorrectly. Even when explanations of what a namespace is are presented, they only go as far as describing its function, neglecting to properly define the name "namespace" itself. Definition of the Namespace A namespace is literally the space to which a name belongs . If we were to classify the term namespace, it would be a specification (concept), not a tool. In namespaces, the higher level is represented as outer and the lower level as inner . In terms of class structure, this corresponds to outer classes and inner classes. In other words, to explain it from a different perspective, it looks like this. Representation of namespaces from the outer perspective Build namespaces (best) Define namespaces (to fit many programming language implementations) Open namespaces (such as Ruby's class definition and module definition ) Create namespaces (such as the pseudo-namespace hack in older JavaScript) Declare namespaces (such as the package declaration in Java or the namespace declaration in PHP) Representation of namespaces from the inner perspective Belong to a namespace (best) Entering the namespace (This is entirely from an inner perspective, so it might feel out of place depending on the context) Be included in the namespace (this is a reasonable explanation if explained objectively). Incorrect expression From the definition above, it is clear that the following expressions are incorrect. Add/Paste a namespace (the expression "add/paste a space" is grammatically incorrect). Use namespaces (not to the point of being completely broken, but treating namespaces as a tool) Separate/Cut namespaces (While "Separated by namespaces" is understandable, "separate/cut" can be misleading) Meaning of "Name" in Namespace The "names" referred to here can be class names, module names, or package names. What they represent varies depending on the language that implements namespaces. For example, in Ruby, it refers to constant names. In Rub

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

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

I remember the day I hit my breaking point. I had spent the entire morning — five hours — wrestling with a React component that an AI assistant had generated for me in about four minutes. The code looked flawless at first glance. Proper hooks, clean JSX, even decent comments. But it didn't work. And worse, I couldn't figure out why. Everyone talks about how AI speeds up coding. And it's true — when it works, it's magical. I've personally seen my feature delivery time drop by maybe 40-50% on good days. But what nobody talks about — what I certainly never saw in the breathless LinkedIn posts — is the debugging nightmare that follows when the AI gets it wrong. That day, I realised I had spent ten times longer debugging AI-written code than I would have spent writing it myself from scratch. I started tracking it. Over three months, I logged every AI-assisted task. The numbers were sobering: on average, each AI-generated snippet took me 3.2 times longer to verify and fix than to write myself. And for complex tasks — anything involving state management, async flows, or edge cases — the ratio jumped to 8-12x. The AI was giving me confidence, not correctness. And confidence, as any seasoned developer knows, is the enemy of debugging. The Hallucination That Cost Me a Sprint One incident stands out. I was building a data pipeline in Python that needed to batch-process JSON files from an S3 bucket and push transformed records into a PostgreSQL database. I gave the AI a detailed prompt: "Write a function that reads all JSON files from a given prefix, validates each record against a schema, and inserts them in batches of 500. Use threading for I/O." The AI returned a beautiful 60-line function. It used concurrent.futures.ThreadPoolExecutor , had proper error handling, even logged progress. I was impressed. I dropped it into the codebase, ran the tests — they passed. Deployed to staging. Worked like a charm. Then production hit. Three hours later, the database had 30,000 duplicat

For decades, Java's object model has powered one of the world's most successful programming languages. But the hardware we run on today looks very different from the world Java was born into in 1995. Modern CPUs are incredibly fast, but memory access, cache locality, and object allocation have become some of the biggest performance challenges in software. Project Valhalla is one of the most ambitious changes in Java's history. It isn't just about making Java faster... it's about rethinking what a Java object actually is. submitted by /u/OSBY_Glabay [link] [留言]

submitted by /u/Aires_id [link] [留言]

This was first published on the Vibsync blog . Reposting for the DEV community. The short version: AI reliably makes each developer faster. Whether it makes the team faster is a separate question — and the gap between the two is where a lot of quiet cost hides. Below: the five coordination costs that eat the difference, a ten-question diagnostic, and five operating principles. Picture three developers, three AI coding agents, and one repository. Each developer can now produce candidate code, tests, and refactors faster than before. Yet releases move at the same pace, review queues grow, and the same facts keep getting rediscovered. That's not a paradox, and it isn't a reason to slow anyone down. It's a reminder that individual speed and team speed are different quantities , and AI coding agents scale the first far more easily than the second. Give everyone a faster typewriter and you get more pages — not necessarily a better book, written faster, by a group. Individual output is not team throughput It's worth separating two things we tend to blur: Individual output — how much finished work one developer (plus their agent) produces. Team throughput — how much shippable, coherent work the group produces together, after review, rework, waiting, and reconciling everyone's changes. AI agents lift individual output directly. Team throughput is what's left after the coordination overhead is paid, and that overhead doesn't shrink just because each person got faster. A useful way to hold it in your head — not as a formula to compute, just as a shape: team throughput ≈ the sum of local speed-ups − rework − waiting − reconciliation When you add agents, the first term grows. If nothing else changes, the last three grow too — because there's now more work in flight, produced faster, by people who can't all see what the others are doing. The interesting question for a team lead isn't "how do I make everyone faster?" It's "which of those subtraction terms is my real ceiling?" Ther

It happened during a medical appointment. I was sitting in the quiet waiting room, my thoughts occupied by the upcoming consultation, when my phone erupted with a loud, aggressive ringtone. The entire room turned to look at me, and I fumbled to silence it, accidentally hitting the volume up button instead of the mute toggle in my panic. I felt that specific, burning embarrassment that comes from being the person who disrupts a quiet space. I realized then that I had spent years writing code for others, yet I couldn't solve my own basic problem of managing my phone's profile. We live in a world of constant notifications and persistent demands on our attention. The real friction isn't just that phones ring; it's that we are expected to remember to manually toggle settings in a dozen different contexts every single day. Whether it is a classroom, a house of worship, or a professional meeting, the human element of remembering to flip a switch is the point of failure. I wanted an app that handled this silently, without me having to open an interface or even think about the current state of my device. I needed a system that functioned as an extension of my environment rather than an additional task. Building Muffle required me to confront the reality of modern Android background execution. Initially, I thought a simple BroadcastReceiver listening for time changes or geofence triggers would suffice. I was wrong. As soon as the phone entered Doze mode—the power-saving state introduced in Android 6.0—my triggers would either be delayed significantly or killed entirely by the system’s restrictive task scheduler. I had to architect a solution that could survive these aggressive optimizations while remaining battery-efficient. The core of the application resides in a ForegroundService that maintains a persistent notification. While many developers avoid these because of the UI footprint, it is the only way to signal to the OS that your process is performing an essential, user-v

Full title: [Advanced Rust] 2.3. API Design Principles of Unsurprising Pt.3 - Implementing serde Serialize and Deserialize Traits, and Why Copy Is Not Recommended 2.3.1. It Is Recommended to Implement Serialize and Deserialize in serde Serde is the core Rust library for serialization and deserialization : Serialization : converts a Rust struct or enum into a string or binary representation such as JSON or YAML Deserialization : parses a string or binary representation such as JSON or YAML back into a Rust struct or enum Serialize and Deserialize are both traits from the serde crate. Serialize Trait The Serialize trait allows a type to be converted into a serializable data format such as JSON, YAML, or TOML. Its main methods include: serialize_bool serialize_i32 serialize_str serialize_struct These are methods on the Serializer (and related) traits that a Serialize implementation calls; the Serialize trait itself only requires serialize . Its definition is: pub trait Serialize { fn serialize < S > ( & self , serializer : S ) -> Result < S :: Ok , S :: Error > where S : Serializer ; } Here is an example showing how to implement Serialize manually: use serde :: ser ::{ Serialize , SerializeStruct , Serializer }; struct Point { x : i32 , y : i32 , } impl Serialize for Point { fn serialize < S > ( & self , serializer : S ) -> Result < S :: Ok , S :: Error > where S : Serializer , { let mut state = serializer .serialize_struct ( "Point" , 2 ) ? ; state .serialize_field ( "x" , & self .x ) ? ; state .serialize_field ( "y" , & self .y ) ? ; state .end () } } serializer.serialize_struct("Point", 2)? creates a struct serializer state, and 2 is the number of fields state.serialize_field("x", &self.x)? serializes the struct fields one by one state.end() finishes serialization Deserialize Trait The Deserialize trait allows Rust types to be parsed from various data formats. Its main methods include: deserialize_bool deserialize_i32 deserialize_string deserialize_struct These are

Full title: [Advanced Rust] 2.2. API Design Principles of Unsurprising Pt.2 - Implementing Clone, Default, PartialEq, PartialOrd, Hash, Eq, and Ord 2.2.1. It Is Recommended to Implement the Clone Trait and the Default Trait Clone Trait The Clone trait in Rust allows an implementer to explicitly create a deep copy of itself through the clone method, as opposed to the by-value copy provided by the Copy trait. Example: #[derive(Debug, Clone)] struct Person { name : String , age : u32 , } impl Person { fn new ( name : String , age : u32 ) -> Self { Self { name , age } } } fn main () { let person1 = Person :: new ( "John" .to_owned (), 25 ); let person2 = person1 .clone (); println! ( "{:?}" , person1 ); println! ( "{:?}" , person2 ); } The Person struct implements the Clone trait In main , person2 clones the data from person1 because it implements Clone Output: Person { name: "John", age: 25 } Person { name: "John", age: 25 } Default Trait The Default trait in Rust allows a type to define a default value and return that default instance through the default() method. Example: #[derive(Default)] struct Point { x : i32 , y : i32 , } fn main () { let p = Point :: default (); println! ( "Point is at ({}, {})" , p .x , p .y ); } Output: Point is at (0, 0) 2.2.2. It Is Recommended to Implement the PartialEq , PartialOrd , Hash , Eq , and Ord Traits PartialEq Trait PartialEq provides support for the == and != operators, allowing custom types to participate in partial equality comparisons. Example: #[derive(Debug, PartialEq)] struct Point { x : i32 , y : i32 , } fn main () { let point1 : Point = Point { x : 1 , y : 2 }; let point2 : Point = Point { x : 1 , y : 2 }; let point3 : Point = Point { x : 3 , y : 4 }; println! ( "point1 == point2: {}" , point1 == point2 ); println! ( "point1 == point3: {}" , point1 == point3 ); } By implementing PartialEq , we can compare whether two structs are equal Output: point1 == point2: true point1 == point3: false PartialOrd , Eq , and Ord Trait

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

hey there, so i wanted to share something with you. this is a bit personal but i have been watching the news this week and bruh... things are not going good. i am jobless right now, no other source of income, and day by day things are getting worse. and the worst part? AI is literally fuking every job in the software field. so when i saw this week's stock market drama, it hit me different. Microsoft popped. Meta tanked. Same AI boom. Two completely opposite reactions. and all i could think was... yeah, this is exactly my life right now. The Numbers, Bruh let me break it down real quick because this is wild: Microsoft jumped like 15% after beating expectations. Azure grew 43%. full year Azure revenue crossed $100 billion. insane. Meta dropped 8–9% after missing on guidance. their free cash flow collapsed 91% year-over-year to just $784 million. like... 91%?? gone. same AI boom. same crazy spending. and the market said "you're amazing" to one and "you're done" to the other. Why Microsoft Won Microsoft actually showed receipts. they didn't just talk about AI, they showed the money coming in. Azure is growing, Copilot is making real revenue, investors can literally see the line between billions spent and billions earned. lesson? Wall Street doesn't hate AI spending. it hates AI spending without proof. Why Meta Lost Meta's problem is that nobody can see where the money comes back. Zuckerberg talked about the "AI capacity dilemma" — how much compute to keep for yourself vs sell to others. but guidance missed, free cash flow went to hell, and the market was like... nah bro, i need answers. and honestly? i relate to that feeling more than i want to admit. putting everything into something and people still saying "not enough." The Bigger Picture this week is a preview of everything coming. companies are dumping hundreds of billions into data centers, chips, and models, all betting AI demand keeps exploding. the ones who can prove it pays off? they get rewarded. the ones who

Table of Contents Introduction Putting the 10x Claim Into Perspective How Did We Get Here? This Was an Extensive Evaluation The Priority Was Compatibility Why Not Rust? Why Not C#? Why Go Fit the Existing Compiler A Port, Not a Simple Translation Where Does the Performance Come From? Native Execution Parallel Processing Memory Efficiency and Larger Projects The Benchmarks Memory Usage The JavaScript API Trade Off Is It Still TypeScript? The F1 Analogy Large Companies Helped Test TypeScript 7 Should You Upgrade? Final Thoughts Introduction At the end of March 2025, I published this article: Go-ing Beyond TypeScript: Microsoft Picks Go: How Will This Change the Landscape? Giorgi Kobaidze Giorgi Kobaidze Giorgi Kobaidze Follow Mar 31 '25 Go-ing Beyond TypeScript: Microsoft Picks Go: How Will This Change the Landscape? # microsoft # typescript # go # csharp 1 reaction 2 comments 12 min read At the time, Microsoft's decision to port the TypeScript compiler to Go sparked quite a bit of discussion and controversy. Many people questioned whether moving such a critical piece of the ecosystem away from TypeScript was the right choice. And boy, did Microsoft deliver what it promised: an order-of-magnitude performance improvement on some of the world's largest TypeScript codebases. The results are here, and the benchmarks speak for themselves. Putting the 10x Claim Into Perspective The phrase "10x faster" describes the scale of the improvement Microsoft has demonstrated. It does not guarantee that every codebase will become exactly ten times faster. The results depend on the size of the project, the work being performed, and the available hardware. Some projects might see a 5x improvement, while others could reach 8x, 10x, 12x, or potentially even more. No, this doesn't make every TypeScript developer a 10x developer , But it does mean that compiling a TypeScript project, loading it in an editor, and receiving diagnostics could become dramatically faster after moving to the nat