标签：#programming

Python's Memory Model Is Not What You Think It Is Ask most Python developers how Python stores a variable and they will say "it stores the value." This is imprecise in a way that causes real bugs and real confusion in interviews. A precise mental model of how Python stores and retrieves data changes how you read and write code. Python does not store values in variables. Python binds names to objects. The distinction sounds philosophical until you trace code that involves mutation, function arguments, or aliasing. Then it becomes the most practically useful concept in the language. Names Are Not Boxes The box metaphor, which says a variable is a box that holds a value, is how most introductory programming courses explain variables. In many languages this metaphor is close enough to accurate that it does not cause problems. In Python it is wrong in ways that matter. A more accurate metaphor: a Python name is a label attached to an object. The object exists independently in memory. Multiple labels can be attached to the same object. Attaching a new label does not move or copy the object. x = [ 1 , 2 , 3 ] y = x print ( id ( x ) == id ( y )) # True (same object, two labels) When you write y = x , you are not copying the list. You are creating a second label that points to the exact same list object. The Four Operations You Must Distinguish 1. Assignment creates a new binding x = [ 1 , 2 , 3 ] x = [ 4 , 5 , 6 ] # x now labels a completely different object The first list still exists in memory until garbage collected. The name x simply stops pointing to it and now points to the second list. 2. Mutation modifies an existing object x = [ 1 , 2 , 3 ] x . append ( 4 ) # the object x labels is modified in place Any other name pointing to the same object will instantly reflect this change because they look at the same memory location. 3. Augmented assignment on mutable types mutates x = [ 1 , 2 , 3 ] y = x x += [ 4 , 5 ] print ( y ) # [1, 2, 3, 4, 5] (same object, mutated) The

AI coding tools can now write features, edit multiple files, debug code, run commands, and generate tests. But while researching how developers use these tools, I keep seeing the same question: Are AI coding tools actually saving us as much time as they should? The models are becoming more capable, but developers still seem to spend significant time managing context, checking changes, watching usage limits, choosing models, and explaining the same project information again. I’m trying to understand whether these are widespread problems or just isolated experiences. The Problems I'm Investigating Context and Memory Long AI coding sessions can sometimes lose direction. The AI may forget earlier decisions, misunderstand project conventions, suggest previously rejected approaches, or require the developer to explain important context again. This makes me wonder: Should project knowledge disappear when a chat session ends? Would it be useful if the development environment could preserve relevant architecture decisions, coding conventions, previous bugs and fixes, failed approaches, current tasks, and next steps? Agent Reliability Writing code is only one part of development. An ideal agent workflow might look more like: Understand → Plan → Edit → Run → Test → Fix → Verify But how autonomous should that process be? Should the agent complete the entire loop independently, ask before risky actions, or wait for approval at every major step? Models, Usage, and Cost Developers now have access to many models, but choosing between them can become another task. Should developers always choose models manually, or should the development environment select an appropriate model based on task complexity, quality requirements, privacy, speed, and budget? Usage limits are another concern. Some developers report difficulty predicting how quickly their allowance is being consumed. Would real-time usage visibility, spending limits, local model support, or BYOK actually improve the experien

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

DeepSeek vs Qwen vs Kimi vs GLM: Which AI API Actually Wins in 2025? I've spent the last decade designing systems that need to stay up no matter what. 99.9% uptime isn't a marketing slogan for me — it's the difference between a happy customer and a 3am incident call. So when the Chinese model ecosystem exploded with options like DeepSeek, Qwen, Kimi, and GLM, I didn't just glance at the benchmarks. I pulled the levers, watched the dashboards, and stress-tested every endpoint I could get my hands on. Here's what I found after weeks of running these models behind load balancers, instrumenting them with p99 latency tracking, and watching how they behave when you throw production traffic at them. The Multi-Region Reality Nobody Talks About Most comparison articles treat AI APIs like they're interchangeable endpoints you curl against. That's fine for a weekend hackathon. It's dangerous for production. When I'm architecting a service that depends on an LLM, I care about three things before I care about quality: p99 latency under sustained load Failover behavior when a region gets congested Cost per million tokens at the rate I'm actually consuming I ran each of these four providers through a series of synthetic workloads — bursts of 200 concurrent requests, sustained 50 RPS for an hour, and cold-start recovery tests. The numbers told a story that the marketing pages don't. The Data at a Glance Here's the TL;DR before I dive in. DeepSeek gives you the best price-to-performance ratio, full stop. Qwen has the widest catalog of model sizes I've ever seen from a single provider. Kimi costs a premium but earns it on reasoning-heavy workloads. GLM punches above its weight on Chinese-language tasks and offers multimodal support that the others don't. Dimension DeepSeek Qwen Kimi GLM Provider DeepSeek (幻方) Alibaba (阿里) Moonshot AI (月之暗面) Zhipu AI (智谱) Output price range $0.25–$2.50/M $0.01–$3.20/M $3.00–$3.50/M $0.01–$1.92/M Budget pick V4 Flash @ $0.25/M Qwen3-8B @ $0.01/M N/A GL

The capability phase is over For the past two years, the AI conversation has been about...

How I Cut My LLM API Bill by 40x: A Freelancer's Migration Story Last month I almost choked on my coffee when my OpenAI dashboard showed $487.32 for a single client project. That's not profit. That's a panic attack. As a freelancer running a one-person shop, every line item on my monthly expenses gets scrutinized harder than my code reviews. I spent the next weekend stress-testing alternatives, and honestly? I was annoyed at myself for not doing it sooner. The savings are obscene. Let me walk you through exactly what I found, what I migrated to, and how the switch took maybe 20 minutes total. Let me Start With the Damage Here's what I was paying before. OpenAI's GPT-4o runs $2.50 per million input tokens and $10.00 per million output tokens. For one of my retainer clients — a SaaS company whose support chatbot I maintain — I'm pushing roughly 50 million tokens through a month on input and another 15 million on output. Do the math with me: 50M × $2.50 = $125 on input alone. 15M × $10.00 = $150 on output. That's $275/month just for that one client's chatbot. Add my other three active clients and suddenly I'm staring at a $400-500 OpenAI bill every month like clockwork. For a freelancer, that's a third of a client's monthly retainer gone before I even touch my actual engineering hours. Unacceptable. The Alternative Landscape (And Why I Picked What I Picked) I went down the rabbit hole. I tested seven different model providers over a long weekend, ran the same prompts through each, compared output quality, latency, and price. Here's the full breakdown I compiled in a spreadsheet (because yes, freelancers absolutely live in spreadsheets): GPT-4o (OpenAI): $2.50 input / $10.00 output per million tokens. The default. The expensive default. GPT-4o-mini (OpenAI): $0.15 input / $0.60 output per million tokens. Already 16.7× cheaper than its big sibling. DeepSeek V4 Flash (Global API): $0.18 input / $0.25 output per million tokens. Forty times cheaper than GPT-4o. Qwen3-32B (G

Hit a perfect 7-day streak this week, splitting my time between a massive aesthetic pivot in my...

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

Nordstjernen is a web browser, written from scratch in C, focused on supporting the HTML and CSS standards. It runs on Windows, Mac and Linux, with an Android port in progress. Nordstjernen is built in Norway. submitted by /u/AndreasWeb [link] [留言]

Hey everyone, My background is in high-performance systems architecture and low-level optimization, and recently, the memory bloat in modern AI editors has been driving me crazy (WE OBVIOUSLY CAN DO BETTER, WHY ARENT WE???) So, I decided to build something significantly leaner and minimal. I built Axiom which uses up to 3.7x less memory than Cursor and 33% less than VSCode. To hit this benchmark, I took VSCode OSS and stripped Electron out completely. Instead of relying on the bundled Chromium instance, I made the editor run inside LaVista ( https://github.com/IASoft-PVT-LTD/LaVista ). This allowed me to drop the footprint of three idle windows down to just 759 MB, compared to the 2,802 MB you'd see in Cursor. What I added on top: AxiomAI: A Bring Your Own Key (BYOK) setup with a local autocomplete and local router system. Token Management: Built-in tracking to monitor, analyze, and set hard limits on your API token usage so you never get a surprise bill. FlowViz: A native visualization engine that lets you render plots, flowcharts, and fully interactive 3D scenes directly in the editor. I am currently rolling out the beta and would love for some technical folks to try it out and try to break it. You can check it out and register for the beta here: https://iasoft.dev/software-engineering/products/axiom/ Would def love to hear your thoughts on the native webview approach or answer any questions about the LaVista implementation! submitted by /u/I-A-S- [link] [留言]

I built a small Redis clone in C: a RESP parser, a command table, an append-only file for persistence. Recently I started building the same thing again in Rust, and rebuilding a project I had already finished has taught me more Rust than any from-scratch tutorial. The reason is simple. The second time, the design is already solved. I know what the AOF has to guarantee, what the command table dispatches, what the parser must reject. So none of my attention goes to what to build. All of it goes to how Rust wants it built. That turns the domain into a constant and the language into the only variable. Every difference I hit is pure signal about Rust, not noise about key-value stores. The first difference shows up before any logic runs. In C, I built the substrate first: my own dynamic strings, my own hashmap, my own linked list. Hundreds of lines before a single command worked. In Rust, Vec , String , and HashMap are just there, so that whole layer disappears and I start at the actual command logic. A standard library quietly decides where your project even begins. The sharper difference is in dispatch. In C it is a switch with argument counts I check by hand: if ( argc != 3 ) return err ( "wrong arg count" ); switch ( cmd ) { case CMD_SET : return do_set ( argv [ 1 ], argv [ 2 ]); case CMD_GET : return do_get ( argv [ 1 ]); /* forget a case and it is a runtime bug */ } In Rust the same dispatch is an enum and a match, and the compiler will not build until every case is handled: match cmd { Command :: Set { key , val } => self .set ( key , val ), Command :: Get { key } => self .get ( key ), } Same dispatch. One version cannot ship the missing-case bug I actually shipped in C. If you already know a project cold, rebuild it in the language you are learning. You stop thinking about the problem and start feeling the language.

I built SeamStress. It's a code reviewer with one rule: it only reports what it can prove against your actual code, quoting the exact lines. If it can't prove it, the finding gets demoted to a judgment call. Not presented as fact. That rule is enforced by one small piece of code: the verification gate. It decides whether a finding may be shown as verified_real. Every other part of the tool can be wrong and the damage is bounded. If the gate is wrong, the tool shows you a confident claim it never earned, with a proof label on it, and it renders as success. Silently. So before making the repo public, I ran the tool on the gate. Same pipeline it runs on anyone's code: three blind critics, then synthesis, then per finding verification. Eight model calls. It found two critical defects in its own foundation. Defect one: verified with no evidence behind it The status authority looked like this: const result = verifications . find (( v ) => v . findingId === finding . id ); return result ? result . status : " unverified " ; It trusted the verdict on a finding ID match. It never looked at the evidence. And the schema allowed an empty evidence array and an empty quoted code string. So a result shaped like {status: "verified_real", evidence: []} validated cleanly and certified a finding as proven. The report renderer would put that finding in the headline, under copy promising the exact lines quoted as proof, with nothing attached. The evidence block suppressed the display of the missing proof. It did not remove the finding from the verified set. The fix lives at the authority, not just the schema: if ( ! result ) return " unverified " ; const hasRealEvidence = result . evidence . some (( e ) => e . quotedCode . trim (). length > 0 ); return hasRealEvidence ? result . status : " unverified " ; A verdict is honored only when at least one non empty quote backs it. Checking at the authority also catches the whitespace quote variant that a naive schema minimum would miss. Fixed in

submitted by /u/gcampos [link] [留言]

A visual walkthrough of Linux eBPF. It goes through the basic pipeline: write a small C program, compile it with clang, load it with bpf(), get it past the verifier, JIT it, attach it to a kernel event, and read data back through maps/ring buffers. The second half gets into why people use it for tracing, XDP packet filtering, security hooks, and sched_ext, then ends with the less fun part: the verifier is the safety boundary, and eBPF gets a lot scarier when the person loading the program already has access. submitted by /u/Ok_Marionberry8922 [link] [留言]

Orasort, a sorting algorithm from Oracle, came into the public domain in 2024 after its patent expired, providing massive benefits to open-source software. submitted by /u/Ok_Stomach6651 [link] [留言]

submitted by /u/nee_- [link] [留言]

submitted by /u/Adventurous-Salt8514 [link] [留言]

ASP.NET Core: Building High-Performance Web Applications and APIs A practical guide to ASP.NET Core — the cross-platform framework for building REST APIs, MVC applications, and backend services on .NET, covering architecture, minimal APIs, middleware, performance, and modern patterns. Table of Contents Introduction Architecture Overview Minimal APIs MVC and Controllers Middleware Pipeline Dependency Injection Configuration and Options Authentication and Authorization Performance Features Testing and Observability Quick Reference Table Conclusion Introduction ASP.NET Core is a free, open-source, cross-platform framework for building web apps, APIs, and backend services. It's a ground-up rewrite of the original ASP.NET, designed around three priorities: Performance — it's consistently one of the fastest mainstream web frameworks in independent benchmarks (e.g., TechEmpower). Modularity — you opt into only the middleware and services your app actually needs, instead of a fixed, heavyweight pipeline. Cross-platform — runs identically on Windows, Linux, and macOS, and deploys to containers, serverless, or bare metal. This guide covers the core building blocks you'll use in almost any ASP.NET Core project, from a five-line minimal API to a full MVC application with authentication and background services. 1. Architecture Overview Every ASP.NET Core app starts from a unified entry point — Program.cs — using the minimal hosting model introduced in .NET 6. var builder = WebApplication . CreateBuilder ( args ); // Register services (dependency injection container) builder . Services . AddControllers (); builder . Services . AddEndpointsApiExplorer (); builder . Services . AddSwaggerGen (); var app = builder . Build (); // Configure the HTTP request pipeline (middleware) if ( app . Environment . IsDevelopment ()) { app . UseSwagger (); app . UseSwaggerUI (); } app . UseHttpsRedirection (); app . UseAuthorization (); app . MapControllers (); app . Run (); Two phases matter here:

Feels like most dev discourse assumes Mac/Linux by default, but the Windows tooling situation (WSL, terminal, package managers) has improved a ton the last couple years. Anyone else building daily on Windows and just not mentioned it because nobody asks? submitted by /u/JaveVictor [link] [留言]

Looking for the best AI UI design tool in 2026? I tested Flowstep, Google Stitch, Figma Make, Lovable, and Base44 with the exact same SaaS project management prompt to compare UI quality, design consistency, code generation, developer workflow, Figma integration, and overall usability. If you've searched for an AI UI design tool recently, you've probably noticed that every product claims it can turn a simple prompt into a polished interface in seconds. Landing pages are full of beautiful dashboards, glowing testimonials, and promises that you'll never have to start from a blank canvas again. The problem is that those demos rarely tell you what happens when you ask the AI design tool to generate something that looks like an actual product instead of a single screenshot. I wanted to know how these AI UI generator tools would perform on a realistic workflow. Could they keep a design system consistent across multiple screens? Would they generate layouts that developers could build on? Could they produce code that was worth keeping, or would I end up rebuilding everything from scratch anyway? Instead of trying different prompts for different tools, I decided to make things as fair as possible. I wrote one detailed prompt for a SaaS project management application and used it everywhere. The five AI design tools I tested were: Flowstep Google Stitch Figma Make Lovable Base44 They all approach AI-assisted UI generation differently, and after spending time with each one, it became clear that they're not really competing to solve the same problem. If you're trying to figure out which AI UI design tool is worth adding to your workflow in 2026, here's what I learned after putting all five through the exact same test. Why AI UI Design Tools Are Becoming Part of Every Developer's Workflow A year or two ago, most AI UI design tools were good at generating a nice-looking landing page and not much else. Today, the landscape looks very different. Some tools can generate an entire mul