Unfortunately, those of us that make games in Unreal Engine are stuck writing a lot of C++, unless we want to do everything in BPs (no thanks, they’re fine, but it’s not coding, and it’s difficult to maintain and refactor for complicated projects, they’re good for taking C++ components and building bigger components out of the base C++ functionality though).

With that said, UE’s support for C++ is decent. Which is, that as long as you tag all your fields, properties, methods, classes, etc. with some UnrealEngine attribute filter (like UCLASS or UPROPERTY), Unreal will handle the memory management of those constructs for you. Which is nice.

Unfortunately it has some other limitations to the C++ language that you can’t work around, like disallowing pure abstracts because every C++ derivative class based on any UE construct (Actor, Character, Pawn, etc.) has to be instantiatable in the editor. So no pure abstracts and such.

In general, I’d give it a 6/10.

It’s still mostly C++, but some of the things suck less.

Yeah, that’s not going to happen.

This is incorrect. And I’m in the industry. In this specific field. Nobody in my industry, in my field, at my level, seriously considers this effective enough to replace their day to day coding beyond generating some boiler plate ELT/ETL type scripts that it is semi-effective at. It still contains multiple errors 9 times out of 10.

I cannot be more clear. The people who are claiming that this is possible are not tenured or effective coders, much less X10 devs in any capacity.

People who think it generates quality enough code to be effective are hobbyists, people who dabble with coding, who understand some rudimentary coding patterns/practices, but are not career devs, or not serious career devs.

If you don’t know what you’re doing, LLMs can get you close, some of the time. But there’s no way it generates anything close to quality enough code for me to use without the effort of rewriting, simplifying, and verifying.

Why would I want to voluntarily spend my day trying to decypher someone else’s code? I don’t need chatGPT to solve a coding problem. I can do it, and I will. My code will always be more readable to me than someone else’s. This is true by orders of magnitude for AI-code gen today.

So I don’t consider anyone that considers LLM code gen to be a viable path forward, as being a serious person in the engineering field.

They’re falling for a hype train then.

I work in the industry. With several thousand of my peers every day that also code. I lead a team of extremely talented, tenured engineers across the company to take on some of the most difficult challenges it can offer us. I’ve been coding and working in tech for over 25 years.

The people who say this are people who either do not understand how AI (LLMs in this case) work, or do not understand programming, or are easily plied by the hype train.

We’re so far off from this existing with the current tech, that it’s not worth seriously discussing.

There are scripts, snippets of code that vscode’s llm or VS2022’s llm plugin can help with/bring up. But 9 times out of 10 there’s multiple bugs in it.

If you’re doing anything semi-complex it’s a crapshoot if it gets close at all.

It’s not bad for generating psuedo-code, or templates, but it’s designed to generate code that looks right, not be right; and there’s a huge difference.

AI Genned code is exceedingly buggy, and if you don’t understand what it’s trying to do, it’s impossible to debug because what it generates is trash tier levels of code quality.

The tech may get there eventually, but there’s no way I trust it, or anyone I work with trusts it, or considers it a serious threat or even resource beyond the novelty.

It’s useful for non-engineers to get an idea of what they’re trying to do, but it can just as easily send them down a bad path.

Even so, he’s wrong. This is the kind of stupid thing someone without any first hand experience programming would say.

These two groups deserve each other.

And we know this because…?

That’s not it at all. The issue is funding Mozilla. Having it as the default search engine is something google currently pays them for the right for. If the DOJ says that’s anti-trust practices, then Google stops paying Mozilla for that right, and 80% of Mozilla’s funding dries up overnight.

As Musk has proven, it doesn’t matter if you’re an oil baron or a renewable energies baron; all baron’s are dickheads. It’s not the field or the damage it does to the world, it’s the role at the top itself that creates these megalomaniac dickheads.

It’s based on Bing from what I recall, and it’s not necessarily the most accurate engine. I tried it for a few months and couldn’t replace Google with it unfortunately.

That is a fair point for sure. No disagreement from me.

I 'm with you, truely.

But what you’re describing is just how science works in a world where we’re trying to make discoveries quickly due to our lifespans only being around 75 years compared to the billions or millions or thousands of years for everything else existing.

As long as we continue making discoveries along the way, this is progress. It sucks that we keep getting things partially wrong sometimes, like with asbestos, but we’ll eventually get it right as long as we keep following the process.

Written by someone who has never beena cog in the machine at a company like this.

There’s nothing he can do to affect things there. Nothing. Not even quitting will change anything.

If you’re a software engineer, and you’re in the unity Austin area, lmk. Assuming you would be open to writing b2b software, the company i work for is huge, and still hiring devs.

Const keyword means constant, a value that won’t change after the application has been compiled; this allows for certain optimizations.

Let keyword is a JavaScript variable that is safely scoped down to the method or function level.

Var keyword is generally discouraged in JavaScript, because it’s a global declaration. The value of it could be available anywhere in the application, and the app might have collisions.

So, the meme is, shifting from a constant, unchanging gender, to the middle where gender is defined and scoped to a local level, to the extreme, where gender is variable globally.