There’s no difference between SSA and ASS in that context so it’s pointless to punish a student for that

I’m not saying it doesn’t happen. This thread started because I said I’ve never understood why people talk like tar is some indecipherable black magic. Common tasks are easy and there’s a man page for everything else.

Literally the only time I’ve ever run into that is when I was trying to manipulate the path it extracted to. In 99% of cases I’m doing tf, xf, or cf plus flags for the compression type, etc, and those differences are irrelevant.

I almost never create a tarball, so I have to look up the syntax for that. Which is as simple as man tar. But as far as extracting it almost couldn’t be easier, tar xf <tarball> and call it a day. Or if you want to list the contents without extracting, tar tf <tarball>. Unless you’re using an ancient version of tar, it will detect and handle whatever compression format you’re using without you having to remember if you need z or J or whatever.

I’ve never understood why people are so intimidated by tar

I thoroughly agree, you should always have CI tools to ensure it builds, passes tests, and meets whatever formatting and/or linting standards the team sets. I was specifically responding to “Rust makes it harder for a ‘contributor’ to sneak in LLM-generated crap”. If I get a contribution from an untrusted party, I will start with the assumption that it’s utter garbage, buggy, broken, and malicious and review it until I’m convinced it’s not. Not because I assume the dev is bad but because it’s safer to assume the code is garbage. If I get a contribution from a trusted party (e.g. a member of the dev team/employee/whatever) I will review the code carefully though not with as much paranoia. I don’t particularly care if my teammates are using LLMs, but if they’re submitting code they don’t understand that’s a great way to get ejected from the “trusted contributors” group, and if they’re an employee it’s a good way to get fired if they keep doing it after being warned not to.

That does sound unpleasant and I can understand why you prefer Windows. Personally, I rarely have problems with Linux that aren’t self inflicted and IMO Windows is an absolute garbage fire of an OS so there’s no way I’d ever daily drive it.

In what situation are you accepting contributions that you haven’t vetted thoroughly enough to detect crap code? I’ve seen a lot of crap from developers that’s as bad or worse than LLM generated crap so there’s no way I’ll ever accept contributions to an important system without thoroughly vetting them unless they’re from one of a very few number of people I trust implicitly.

I’ve had success with Claude, but there’s always a layer of separation. I ask it to do something, read what it produced, and decide if it’s garbage or not. And rewrite or discard as necessary. Though counting by LOC mainly I’ve used it for writing tests.

I didn’t say never copy and paste. I’m saying when you push a commit you should understand what all the LOC in that commit do (not counting vendored dependencies). If you don’t understand how something works, like crypto (not sure what Hamilton or Euler refers to in this context), ideally you would use a library. If you can’t, you should still understand the code sufficiently well to be able to explain how it implements the underlying algorithm. For example if you’re writing a CRC function you should be able to explain how your function implements the CRC operations, even if you don’t have a clue why those operations work.

I said you need to understand what the code you wrote (as in, LOC that git blame will blame on you) does. Not that you need to fully understand what the code it calls does. It should be pretty obvious from context that I’m referring to copy-pasting code from stack overflow or an LLM or whatever without knowing what it does.

If you are submitting work, you should understand how the code you’re submitting works. Sure, you don’t have to know exactly how the code it calls works, but if you’re submitting code and there’s a block of code and you have no clue how that block works, that’s a problem.

There’s a huge difference between copy-pasting code you don’t understand and using a library with the assumption that the library does what it says on the tin. At the very least there’s a clear boundary between your code and not-your-code.

Are you seriously trying to equate “I don’t know which instructions this code is using” to “I copied code I don’t understand”? Are you seriously trying to say that someone who doesn’t know how to write x = a + b in assembly doesn’t understand that code?

If you’re adding code you don’t understand to a production system you should be fired

Edit: I assumed it was obvious from context that I’m referring to copy-pasting code from stack overflow or an LLM or whatever without knowing what it does but apparently that needs to be said explicitly.

I guess I just don’t see enough memes to have picked up on that

Marketing. People expect to see different things on a website vs Twitter/X so the same content won’t perform the same on each. So for a business it makes sense to post different things on your website vs Twitter/X.

I’m not sure what to tell you. I just don’t see what you do. And I never bother to look at a meme close enough to notice the kind of details the other user pointed out.

How can you tell?

nasm is an assembler though, not a ‘languages’

That’s like saying “clang is a compiler though, not a language”. It’s correct but completely beside the point. Unless you’re writing a compiler, “cross platform assembler” is kind of an insane thing to ask for. If want to learn low level programming, pick a platform. If you are trying to write a cross-platform program in assembly, WHY!? Unless you’re writing a compiler. But even then, in this day and age using a cross-platform assembler is still kind of an insane way to approach that problem; take a lesson from decades of progress and do what LLVM did: use an intermediate representation.