If you walk into the head office of Qualcomm (in Sorrento Vally, San Diego, CA) and you see the the "Patent Wall" in the entrance covered with almost 1400 patents, it's kind of hard to wonder just how open Arduino will be.
Maybe if the sign up process encouraged people to send videos (screen-side and user-side could be useful also), of their sign-up and usage experience, the teams responsible for user experience could make some real progress.
I guess the question is, who cares, or who is responsible in the organization?
Now that I have seen groklaw.net/about-us page, I have seen it all.
Here is the new Groklaw mission statement:
Our Mission
Our mission is simple: to guide you toward safe, rewarding, and responsible crypto gambling experiences. We believe in transparency, player protection, and giving you the tools to make informed choices — whether you want massive Bitcoin bonuses, ultra-fast withdrawals, or niche altcoin gaming.
Just my two cents, as an end-user choosing a OS to use on an N150 to do static web hosting, I would sure like to know if those features make a meaningful difference.
But I also understand, that looking at that might have beyond the scope of the article.
The article says "I think the biggest factor is that any rewrite of an existing codebase is going to yield better results than the original codebase.".
Yeah, sorry, but no, ask some long-term developers about how this often goes.
It depends on the codebase. If the code base deserves to be a case study in how not to do programming, then a rewrite will definitely yield better results.
I once encountered this situation with C# code written by an undergraduate, rewrote it from scratch in C++ and got a better result. In hindsight, the result would have been even better in C since I spent about 80% of my time fighting with C++ to try to use every language feature possible. I had just graduated from college and my code whole better, did a number of things wrong too (although far fewer to my credit). I look back at it in hindsight and think less is more when it comes to language features.
I actually am currently maintaining that codebase at a health care startup (I left shortly after it was founded and rejoined not that long ago). I am incrementally rewriting it to use a C subset of C++ whenever I need to make a change to it. At some point, I expect to compile it as C and put C++ behind me.
Data structures like maps and vectors from the standard library are still incredibly useful and make a fantastic addition to C if your focus relies on POD types, though if real time performance with heap cohesion is a problem then you’re right to go pure C
I've been a software developer for nearly 2 decades at this point, contributed to several rewrites and oversaw several rewrites of legacy software.
From my experience I can assure you that rewriting a legacy codebase to modern C++ will yield a better and safer codebase overall.
There are multiple factors that contribute to this, such one of which is what I reffer to as "lessons learnt" if you have a stable team of developers maintaining a legacy codebase they will know where the problematic areas are and will be able to avoid re-creating them in a rewrite.
An additonal factor to consider is that a lot of legacy C++ codebases can not be upgraded to use modern language features like smart pointers. The value smart pointers provide in a full rewrite can not be overstated.
Then there's also the factor that is a bit anecdotal which is I find that there are less C++ devs in general as there was 15 years ago, but those that stayed / survived are generally better and more experienced with very few enthusiastic juniors coming in.
I'm sorry you did not enjoy the article though, but thank you for giving it your time and reading it that part I really appreciate.
I enjoyed the article, and as a longtime developer. I certainly relate to being heads down on a problem, only to step away for a walk or a breather and realize I can maybe avoid solving the immediate problem altogether.
I also don’t think it’s possible to focus at 100% on a detailed complex problem, and also concurrently question is there a better path or a way to avoid the current problem. Sometimes you just need to switch modes between focusing on the details the weeds, and popping back up to asking does this even have to be completed at all?
Anthropic "warned" Claude 4 is so smart that it will try to use the terminal (if using Claude Code) or any other tools available (depending on where you're invoking it from) to contact local authorities if you're doing something very immoral.
No reference here but found this out the hard way too. Google search Ali is Utterly useless in fact and entirely different search results vs using the web. Bing is better. Haven’t tried ksgi yet
"References"? :-) This is a corporation we're talking about, and Google at that. Layers upon layers of obscurity, "strategic decisions" and discontinued products.
Try it and you'll see — there is no official Search API and the Custom Search API is quite poor and not usable in most scenarios.
