标签：#programming

TL;DR — When the spec is good, implementation needs less model. I started using a top-tier model to write the spec and a cheaper, faster one to implement it — still using the strong model, just spending it on the spec instead of the implementation. The gain isn't some magic prompt phrasing; it's the context: explicit business rules, audited project constraints, a defined output contract. That's systems engineering — the discipline of anyone who's kept real software alive, whatever their stack. Every backend dev knows the scene: the Swagger is out of date, the last hotfix shipped without a unit test, and the README.md documents a command nobody's used in six months. The code works. The docs lie. And the gap between the two is exactly where AI — and we — start to go wrong. I've spent the last few months developing with AI for real inside production projects, not tutorial greenfield. My takeaway was less about which model to use and more about a shift that already has a name: the move from prompt engineering to context engineering . The difference isn't semantic. Prompt engineering treats the problem as writing — finding the magic phrase. Context engineering treats it as what it always was: a systems engineering problem . And it's where my backend background applied most directly — though anyone who's kept a real system alive has the same instinct. The experiment that convinced me Let me start with the evidence, because that's what made me take this seriously. My reflex, for a long time, was to reach for the strongest model for everything — more expensive, smarter, fewer errors. Makes sense on paper. In practice, I saw something else. When the task's specification is well done — explicit business rules, audited project constraints, a defined output format — the model capability needed for implementation drops sharply. Enough to split the work by stage: I started using a top-tier model (currently Opus) to write the spec , and a cheaper, faster model (Sonnet) to implemen

I started my career in the late 2010s, and I have had a front-row seat to the growth of the industry that has given me everything: software engineering. Looking back over the last decade, I have mixed feelings about some of the calls I made. And I am seeing the same patterns play out again now. So for engineers who are confused about where this is headed and how to navigate it, here is how I think about it. Generalist SWEs were a product of cheap money The late 2010s, I saw an huge amount of startup funding, globally. Flipkart, Snapdeal, Jugnoo, and hundreds of others were scaling hard and one hiring pattern I saw was that: everyone wanted generalist software engineers. People who could easily get upto speed across the stack.- backend, frontend, infra, deployment and simply ship. Building software was expensive. Automation was still low. Kubernetes had just gone mainstream. Shipping still meant a surprising amount of manual work: SSH-ing into servers, copying artifacts around, running mvn builds by hand, debugging deployments straight in production, duct-taping infrastructure that today you would never touch. Companies fought over engineers who maximized feature throughput. Breadth was a premium, because every extra engineer increased the rate at which software got built. It helped because the money was also free and VCs rewarded growth over efficiency, and hiring software engineers in bulk was the easiest way to spend it. Pull up a resume from an engineer who started around that time and you will usually see the same shape: a long list of technologies and frameworks, broad and adaptable, but rarely deep in any one thing. There was no incentive to go deep. LLMs Changed The Dynamics LLMs did not kill software engineering. It compressed the cost of implementation. The work that got hit first was the work that was already standardized: CRUD apps; API integration and glue code; Framework-heavy backend work; Frontend scaffolding; Standard architectural patterns. What use

submitted by /u/patrickdevivo [link] [留言]

This is a complete, copy‑pasteable guide for shipping a backend app to a single Linux server using Docker Compose , with a GitHub Actions pipeline that builds the image, scans it, and deploys it over SSH. It is written to be language- and framework-agnostic . The examples use a Node/TypeScript API with PostgreSQL, Redis, and a background worker, but the same shape works for Python/Django, Go, Java/Spring, Ruby, etc. Anywhere you see your-app , your-org , your-server-ip , or example.com , substitute your own values. Every file is included in full, and every non-obvious line is explained. The last section — Common errors and how to fix them — is the part most guides skip, and it is the part that will actually save your afternoon. All of it comes from a real deployment, mistakes included. 1. The mental model (read this first) Before any YAML, understand the shape of what we're building. There are only three places anything lives: Your Git repository the single source of truth. Your code, your Dockerfile , your docker-compose.prod.yml , and your CI/CD workflows all live here. You only ever edit things here. A container registry (we use GHCR, GitHub's built-in registry) — a warehouse for the built application image. CI builds the image and pushes it here. Your server (a plain Linux VPS) pulls the image from the registry and runs it. It holds exactly two files: the compose file (copied from your repo by the pipeline) and a secrets file ( .env ) that never leaves the server. The flow, end to end: You push to main │ ▼ GitHub Actions: build image ──► push to registry ──► scan image │ ▼ GitHub Actions: SSH to server ──► pull image ──► run migrations ──► start app ──► health-check The single most important rule: the server is disposable . You never hand-edit files on the server, because the pipeline overwrites them from the repo on every deploy. If you fix something by editing on the server, the next deploy silently erases your fix. Edit in the repo, commit, push. (I learned t

Code generation tools are powerful and can significantly accelerate development work. Their main limitation is not capability, but context. Without access to organizational knowledge, internal conventions, and system-specific patterns, generated output often requires careful verification. This is why generation tools work best when paired with AI code search, as the latter provides immediate visibility into the existing codebase, making it easier to align AI-generated changes with the realities of the system. In regulated environments, the adoption model may look different. Security or compliance constraints can restrict the use of cloud-based code generation. AI code search still improves developer efficiency across implementation, review, and documentation workflows by enabling fast navigation and comprehension of large multi-repository codebases. What is AI code intelligence, and how does it help in practice? Code intelligence tools help developers find and understand existing code. If a search returns a poor result, the developer simply searches again. Nothing changes in your codebase. Code search also integrates without friction. No new review processes, no changes to CI/CD, no new permissions. Generation tools require policies for AI-written code that stall many pilots before they produce data. Clear metrics for measuring AI code intelligence An AI code search assistant only reads your code, which makes it much easier to measure its impact. You can track simple things like: • how long it takes to find the right piece of code • how quickly new developers get up to speed • how many hours the team spends searching each week If your team of 20 developers each spends 5 hours weekly understanding code, that equals 100 hours of engineering time. At $75 per hour, that’s $360,000 per year. Assume 10% reduction recovers $36,000, a realistic input for an AI ROI framework for tech teams. Faster path to Phase 3 expansion Code generation tools face tough questions from secu

The agents were doing exactly what I told them to. That was the problem. I'd built a pipeline where AI agents could take a spec file, implement a feature, run the tests, review the result, and commit — without me writing a line of code. It mostly worked. Dozens of features shipped. But I kept reviewing the output and feeling like something was off. Not broken. Just subtly wrong in a way that was hard to name. I spent a while blaming the models. Then the prompts. Then the validation steps. Eventually I had to sit with the obvious: the agents were implementing exactly what I'd written. My specs were underspecified. The bottleneck was always me, at the planning stage. The thing most people throw away There's something that feels right about vibe coding. You're operating at the level of intent — describing what you want and letting the model handle the mechanics. That part is genuinely useful. But watch what most people do with the output: Traditional development: Source code → Compiler → Binary (keep the source; regenerate binary anytime) Vibe coding done wrong: Prompt → LLM → Generated code (delete the prompt; commit the code) You've shredded the source and carefully version-controlled the binary. The prompt — your structured description of what you wanted, why, and what "correct" meant — is the valuable artifact. The generated code is what compiles from it. When you discard the prompt and commit only the output, you've lost the thing that actually mattered. The practical consequence shows up six months later: you're staring at code you wrote and spending twenty minutes reverse-engineering your own intent. The spec would have been a thirty-second read. What a spec-driven pipeline is I built what I call an SDLC (Software Development Lifecycle) harness — a system where instead of writing code directly, you write a spec describing what needs to be built, and AI agents handle the implementation, testing, review, and documentation. The spec is the source. The code is what

https://www.omegasyntax.com/domino/ Series of articles about Domino Tiling problem. submitted by /u/eugene [link] [留言]

Data Oriented Design is the practice of building code that's optimized for the hardware it runs on. Entity Component Systems help writing DOD-friendly code by laying out otherwise allocation-heavy game data in contiguous arrays. A challenge in gamedev however is that lots of game data is stored and accessed as hierarchies that change frequently, which makes them notoriously difficult to store as contiguous arrays. This article goes over a number of techniques an Entity Component System can use to integrate hierarchies with the core datamodel in a way that improves the performance of the ECS. Written mostly for gamedev, but also applies to other hierarchy-heavy applications, like UI. submitted by /u/ajmmertens [link] [留言]

Every day I see more projects where a layer-per-entity approach is created by default: UserService , UserRepository , OrderService , OrderRepository , and so on. My issue is not with layering itself, but with how these layers are used. In theory, a Service should represent application behavior: something that encapsulates real use cases or meaningful interactions with external systems (payments, emails, APIs, etc.). Something with enough significance to justify being isolated. A Repository , in theory, should exist when there is real complexity in data access: multiple data sources, non-trivial persistence logic, evolving storage mechanisms, etc. However, in practice, they often degrade into something else: services that simply delegate calls repositories that are thin wrappers around an ORM interfaces with no meaningful alternative implementation At that point, the abstraction starts to lose its purpose. Why not use the ORM directly when there is no real complexity to hide? Why do we default to intermediate layers that don’t truly represent either a service or a repository in their original sense? It often feels like they add files, indirection, and noise without improving clarity. I’m not saying these layers are inherently bad. I’m trying to understand why they are so often applied by default, even when they don’t serve their actual purpose. Does this approach really improve clarity, or does it just introduce unnecessary complexity? For example, instead of organizing code around generic services per model, we could structure it around explicit use cases for concrete system actions. These would still live within an application/service layer in the sense described by Fowler, but without forcing a generic ModelService structure for everything. The goal would be to design around intent rather than around structural templates—so the code reflects what the system does , not just how it is layered . submitted by /u/Character-Method-720 [link] [留言]

We have all been there: you build a utility app that relies on precise location or time-based triggers, only to find that it works perfectly on your Pixel but dies silently on a Samsung or Xiaomi device. When I started building Muffle, an app designed to automate sound profiles based on prayer times and GPS, I realized that standard AlarmManager usage wasn't enough to survive aggressive battery optimizations. The Problem with OEM Kill-Switches Modern Android versions enforce strict background execution limits. If your app isn't a high-priority foreground service, OEMs will frequently kill your process to save a few milliwatts of battery. For Muffle, if the process dies, the user misses their silent profile trigger, which defeats the entire purpose of the app. I had to move away from relying on a long-running background service and rethink my architecture entirely. Moving to WorkManager with Expedited Jobs Instead of a persistent service, I transitioned the core logic to WorkManager . By utilizing ExistingPeriodicWorkPolicy.UPDATE , I ensure that the scheduling remains consistent even across reboots. However, WorkManager alone can be delayed by Doze mode. To combat this, I implemented setExpedited(OutOfQuotaPolicy.RUN_AS_NON_EXPEDITED_WORK_REQUEST) for critical profile switches. This tells the system that the work is time-sensitive. kotlin val workRequest = PeriodicWorkRequestBuilder(15, TimeUnit.MINUTES) .setConstraints(Constraints.Builder().build()) .setExpedited(OutOfQuotaPolicy.RUN_AS_NON_EXPEDITED_WORK_REQUEST) .build() Leveraging Foreground Services with Notifications For features requiring immediate precision—like geofencing—I had to accept that a persistent notification is non-negotiable. To keep the app from being perceived as 'spammy,' I designed the notification to be low-priority, showing only when a profile is actively being managed. I also had to handle the onTaskRemoved callback in my Service implementation. By calling startService again with a sticky

Found this YouTube video of these kids demoing the densepose repo. However, I believe there was a huge fuss about this being vibe-coded slop and not actually running. This video also seems super suspect as the wifi is only detecting him and not the cameraman or anything else. Has anyone got this Repo up and running? submitted by /u/Wonderful-Bass-8993 [link] [留言]

Software teams often face a false choice: move fast and accumulate technical debt, or build the perfect system and miss the deadline. But there may be a third path, the Best Simple System for Now (BSSN). This session introduces a pragmatic yet principled approach to software design: systems that are as simple as possible but no simpler. You’ll learn how to design code that is robust, change-friendly, and fit for purpose, while avoiding both gold-plating and corner-cutting. Through practical examples, we explore how to manage complexity, embrace uncertainty, and make sound decisions using concepts like Cost of Delay and RAROC. submitted by /u/goto-con [link] [留言]

Link:- https://easy-assign.vercel.app Specially need some suggestions for ui Want some suggestions what to do next It is a freelance platform for students and freshers so they can easily get some gigs or post task for help they need In last 3 days I got around 500 users and some paid tasks What could be improved here ? The ui ,the way we make them apply ,profiles streaks or what? I want to scale it more and bring bigger projects here so what to do to make it more trustworthy ( I know first suggestion will be payment integration that will be done after 2000 users) submitted by /u/detective8421 [link] [留言]

Introduction I'm Ahmer. I'm 19, I'm doing a 4-year Software Engineering degree at a fairly...

Most people assume Redis is fast because of some complex multi-threaded. Turns out it's the opposite — it runs on a single thread and still beats most databases. The reason comes down to how it handles I/O at the OS level and why memory access patterns matter more than thread count. Here's a animated breakdown of the internals if anyone's curious. submitted by /u/lonely_geek_ [link] [留言]

kreuzcrawl began as a Rust core with bindings for ten languages. v0.3.0 ships fourteen, adds a tiered WAF-aware dispatch engine, cuts peak streaming memory from ~2.5 GB to ~20 MB, and enables SSRF defense across every outbound call path by default. It is the first release we consider API-stable. This post covers what changed, why each decision was made, and what the harder engineering problems looked like from the inside. At a glance Area v0.2.0 v0.3.0 Language bindings 10 14 (+Dart, Kotlin/Android, Swift, Zig) Peak streaming memory ~2.5 GB ~20 MB SSRF protection opt-in on by default Dispatch model static HTTP / bypass / browser tiered, signal-driven escalation WAF fingerprints — 35 across 8 vendors Fingerprint hot-reload — lock-free ( ArcSwap ), 500 ms debounce MCP tools partial 1:1 with CLI, safety-annotated CLI subcommands scrape, crawl + batch-scrape, batch-crawl, download, citations Robots / sitemap parsers engine-internal public modules API stability preview stable Four new language bindings v0.2.0 shipped Rust, Python, Node.js, Ruby, Go, Java, C#, PHP, Elixir, and WebAssembly. v0.3.0 adds Dart , Kotlin/Android , Swift , and Zig — bringing the total to fourteen. None of the per-language glue is written by hand. Every binding is generated from the Rust core by alef , our polyglot binding generator. The Dart and Kotlin/Android packages bind through the C FFI layer ( kreuzcrawl-ffi ) via dart:ffi and JNI respectively. Swift binds through clang. Zig uses @cImport against the same C header. The generation pipeline also hardened in this release: the Docker publish matrix now builds each architecture natively rather than via QEMU emulation, the Dart build no longer requires the Flutter SDK for pub.dev publishes, Swift artifactbundle checksums are injected automatically, and the Elixir/PHP/Ruby releases preserve their lock files through the source-publish step. === "Python" ```sh pip install kreuzcrawl ``` === "Node.js" ```sh npm install @xberg/kreuzcrawl ``` === "Rus

Hello, I'm Maneshwar. I'm building git-lrc, a Micro AI code reviewer that runs on every commit. It is...

Adding an AI feature looks deceptively easy. You sign up for an API key, paste in a prompt, and within an hour you've got a working demo that makes the whole team lean over your shoulder. Then you ship it, traffic arrives, and two things happen at once: your latency graph develops a long, ugly tail, and your monthly bill arrives with a number that makes finance schedule a meeting. The gap between "impressive demo" and "production feature" is almost entirely about cost and latency engineering. The model is the easy part. Here's how to cross that gap. First, understand what you're actually paying for Most LLM APIs bill by tokens — roughly ¾ of a word each — and they bill both directions: the tokens you send (input) and the tokens the model generates (output). Output tokens are usually several times more expensive than input tokens, which has a non-obvious consequence: a verbose prompt is cheaper than a verbose answer. This reframes optimization. People obsess over trimming their prompts while letting the model ramble for 800 tokens when 80 would do. If you want to cut cost, the highest-leverage move is almost always constraining the output : ask for JSON, ask for a single sentence, set a max_tokens ceiling, and tell the model explicitly to be terse. Latency follows the same logic. Generation is sequential — the model produces one token at a time — so output length is the single biggest driver of how long a request takes. A 50-token answer is fast almost regardless of model. A 2,000-token answer is slow even on the fastest infrastructure. Lever 1: Don't call the model when you don't have to The cheapest, fastest LLM call is the one you never make. Two techniques eliminate a startling share of traffic. Caching identical and near-identical requests. Many real-world prompts repeat — the same FAQ-style question, the same document summarized twice, the same classification of similar inputs. A cache keyed on the normalized prompt turns a repeat request into a sub-millisecond

submitted by /u/jonko_ds [link] [留言]

I build Voxis, an open-source Windows app that translates whatever your system is playing — a video, a game, the other side of a call — and plays the translation back as spoken voice, a few seconds behind the speaker. No subtitles, no virtual audio cable, no bot joining your meeting. The "no virtual cable" part is the bit worth writing about. Almost every system-audio tool on Windows tells you to install VB-CABLE or VoiceMeeter, or to drop a bot into your call. Voxis doesn't, for incoming audio. This post is how that capture engine works, and the sharp edges I hit building it in Python. I'll be specific about what's hard and honest about what's not mine to fix. The goal Read the exact audio the user is hearing — the post-mix system output — at 16 kHz mono, and do it without installing anything. Then stream it to a translation model and play the result back, all while the original keeps playing underneath. Three constraints fall out of that: Driverless. If it needs a reboot and a driver, it's not zero-setup. No self-feedback. The app plays translated audio into the same system mix it's capturing . Naively, it would capture its own voice and translate the translation. That has to be impossible by construction, not patched with an echo gate. Realtime-safe. Capture can't stall. If the downstream VAD or garbage collector hiccups, the WASAPI ring buffer must not overflow. WASAPI process-loopback: capturing the mix, minus yourself Windows 10 version 2004 added the ApplicationLoopback API — a way to activate an IAudioClient in loopback mode scoped to a process tree, either including only that tree or excluding it. Excluding our own process tree is exactly what constraint #2 needs: the captured mix is everything the user hears, with Voxis's own output removed. You don't get this client from the normal IMMDeviceEnumerator path. You activate it by name through ActivateAudioInterfaceAsync , passing the loopback parameters in a PROPVARIANT carrying a BLOB : params = AUDIOCLIENT_