They're indeed fuglier than fugly. I've had many BMWs but that BMX iX3 looks really bad. Don't know what they were smoking.
Wife's daily driver is a 4-series "Gran Coupé" (weird term to say it's got 4-doors and not two like the "coupé" but... "Gran" is not a french word: the french word would be "grand" so I think they somehow fucked up [1]) with the B48 ICE engine. Sweet car and really good looking.
But yeah: to each his own bad taste.
[1] not as bad as Audi and its "e-tron" where "etron", literally, means "turd" in french.
I dont like the "impure" label. But the guts of it is right. Most software solves a business problem. Even the "pure" ones could choose to deliver value sooner with tech debt.
The main thing that lacks in go is auto OpenAOI generation from a golang func. You at least need reflection. It can be done. But not as easy as in python
I thought this was going to be some hit-piece tweet then I saw it was a tweet from Sam Altman himself. That video... Wow. I got in 2min before I had to stop. I thought you might be over-exaggerated but full of /themselves/ doesn't even begin to describe it.
Ship something, then you can create a video like that, not before.
this is designed to appeal directly to a certain kind of self-mythologizing Bay Area techie, the kind that was common in the early 2010s. It’s meant to signal continuity, “we’re just like you, we loved Steve Jobs”
I agree the first minute or two of this was very cringe. I stuck with it though and it reminded me very much of the kind of talk that was common in the late '00s tech scene. Sort of nice to see that kind of optimism again.
People are using the word "agentic" to mean this, I think. But yeah it's a dumb, overloaded primarily marketing word. I keep going back and forth on whether I should use the word "agentic"/"agent" at all
I see a lot of people here saying one is better than the other. But it depends on your use case and company size.
GRPC is a lot more complex to start using and hides internals. However it has some major advantages too like speed, streaming, type safety, stub generation. Once you have it in place adding a function is super easy.
The same can be said of OpenAPI. It’s easier to understand. Builds upon basic REST tech. However JSON parsing is slow, no streaming and has immature stub generation.
From my experience a lot of users who use OpenAPI only use it to generate a spec from the handwritten endpoints and do manual serialization. This is the worst of the two worlds.
- manual code in mapping json to your objects
- manual code mapping function parameters to get params or json
- often type mapping errors in clients
Those engineers often don’t understand that OpenAPI is capable of stub generation. Let alone understand GRPC.
GRPC saves a lot of work once in place. And is technical superior. However it comes at a cost.
I’ve seen OpenAPI generated from routes, with generated clients libs work really well. This requires some time to setup because you can hardly use OpenAPIGenerator out of the box. But once setup I think it hits a sweet spot:
- simple: http and json
- can be gradually introduced from hardcoded manual json serialization endpoint (client and server)
- can be used as an external api
- allows for client lib generation
But it really depends on your use case. But to dismiss GRPC so easily mainly shows you have never encountered a use case where you need it. Once you have it in place it is such a time saver. But the same holds for proper OpenAPI RPC use.
However my inner engineer hates how bad the tooling around OpenAPI is, the hardcoded endpoints often done instead of server stubs, and the amount of grunt work you still need todo to have proper client libs.
Both in software hardware and handing.
https://youtu.be/P-H-GJaGiUg?si=eq8YWy8gyJ5YS99X
I think it even surpasses Chinese brands.