Not getting it. Why would you want to do this? And why is no distinction made between `typeof(type)` and `type`? And doesn't the entire problem go away if you distinguish between `typeof(type)`, which is a value whose type is `type`?
It makes life much easier when you want to use fancier types. E.g. if you want to be able to have ListOfLength[4], it's much nicer to be able to use normal 4 which you can use normal arithmetic on (and therefore say that when you append ListOfLength[x] to ListOfLength[y] you get ListOfLength[x + y]), than to have to encode everything in types and make it some kind of ListOfLength[SpecialTypeLevel4] (and then when you append the two lists you get a ListOfLength[TypeLevelAdditionIsCommutative[TypeLevelAdd[x, y]]#Result] or something).
To make that work you have to be able to use values as type parameters, i.e. types, so you have to be able to have e.g. types of type int, as well as types of type type, and it all gets a lot simpler and easier to work with if you just say that types have type type.
> And why is no distinction made between `typeof(type)` and `type`?
Well that's the whole point, to say that type is of type type.
> And doesn't the entire problem go away if you distinguish between `typeof(type)`, which is a value whose type is `type`?
No, because why would you ever use it as a value? The whole point of typeof is that it gives you a type that you can use as a type.
The principle difference, IMHO, is that it makes the security visible. My home cable router has NO firewall configuration at all. Supplied by my ISP and woefully deficient in absolutely all respects. I can't (for example) configure It does have a configuration for forwarding IPv4 ports to inside machines; but none for forwarding IPv6 ports. Does it have stateful filtering of IPv6 ports? I'd like to think that it does, but if so there is no visible evidence that it does.
I am a (very) senior dev with decades of experience. And I, too, am blown away by the massive productivity gains I get from the use of coding AIs.
Part of the craft of being a good developer is keeping up with current technology. I can't help thinking that those who oppose AI are not protecting legitimate craft, but are covering up their own laziness when it comes to keeping up. It seems utterly inconceivable to me that anyone who has kept up would oppose this technology.
There is a huge difference between vibe coding and responsible professional use of AI coding assistants (the principle one, of course, being that AI-generated code DOES get reviewed by a human).
But that, being said, I am enormously supportive of vibe coding by amateur developers. Vibe coding is empowering technology that puts programming power into the hands of amateur developers, allowing them to solve the problems that they face in their day-to-day work. Something that we've been working toward for decades! Will it be professional-quality code? No. Of course not. Will it do what it needs to do? Invariably, yes.
It seems more of a cultural issue that -- I'm pretty sure -- predates Microsoft's acquisition of GitHub. I assume crappy proprietary yaml can be blamed on use of Ruby. And there seems to be an odd and pervasive "80% is good enough" feel to pretty much everything in GitHub, which is definitely cultural, and I'm pretty sure, also predates Microsoft's acquisition.
GHA is based on Azure Actions. This is evident in how bad its security stance is, since Azure Actions was designed to be used in a more closed/controlled environment.
reply