Good one. xd

Lmao

i have seen cable management. capable management can be beautiful. this is not cable management. this is lack of cable management.

Cable mismanagement ​@@tanko.reactions176

it looks like my cable management anyway

You misunderstood him. The person who admires simplicity because he understands the difficulty of the problem is the genius. I would love to see how Jia compares.

A realist admires salary

the most powerfull sentence of our time

@@kuklama0706 real big brain here

"so grug say again and say often: complexity very, very bad"

You should check out the average "grown" LabVIEW program, that's running an experiment that went through the hands of 3 generations of PhD grad students and their respective undergraduates. THAT is the true form of spaghetti code.

i dont like it, but its true...

The docs:

My experience trying to setup neovim

I don't really understand the point being made here... Vanishingly few docs have useful graphics, but they're important. What are we even looking at in this video, an OOP command flags parser? For OOP, a graph like this is actually useful.

@@sullivan3503 not about the literal graph, but more about how documentation, much like this graph here, is often a tangled incomprehensible mess, defeating the very purpose of its own existence

Only if they have seen it. Which is unlikely because idiots never view their creation as a whole.

I mean idk if I could do the paths that well (to go around other objects and stuff) but I'm somewhat of a noob

Someone spent 5 seconds configuring a plugin to autogenerate dependency graphs. More time was spent criticizing it here. It's still readable enough and it'd take more time handcrafting pixel-perfect graphs than you'd save because of better readibility. Plus, you'd risk people forgetting to updating the graph to reflect reality. Moreover, a lot of "dependencies" here are just basic utility types like "string", so we can't really conclude from this graph that this solution is overly complex (as some other comments suggest).

​@@AlfaToTheOmega Nobody reads or cares about this graph and it's completely useless, no one gets anything out of it. But someone though it would be fine to autogenerate everything and dump it on a page without caring what it's outputting. I guarantee you 0 people have gotten any value from it. In addition, the graph software is poorly written for the various reasons blow points out so it's just stupid bullshit on more stupid bullshit.

Yeah, it's weird they even managed to compile it.

They did not

can you elaborate on this? just trying to learn

@@CashsCoffeeguy is referring to the clean code book and the philosophy of breaking everything down into tiny methods that each do almost nothing and obscure what is going on in service of pretty looking object oriented code

@ctxz9580I did the same too

im never complaining about template errors ever again

they definitely are

Yeah, I saw this same moment two times already. I even copied my comment from one of those videos here.

Hey now, no consthpiracy theories allowed! ☝💢

@BufordTJustice42069 Wordcel

I don't mind if they're copying each other. The alternative would be trying hard not to cover the same material in a race to the bottom.

exactly lol

I've seen colleagues act disgusted when they see a medium-sized if-else-if chain... Feels like I'm working with professional cargo cultists.

Don't ever use goto, like ever. They are unscoped loops.

@@chudchadanstud This statement contains too much dogma. There are definitely a few situations where it can make sense to use goto. And luminaries like Kernighan also confirm this.

@@starc0w There has never been a situation when it makes sense to use goto. Use a switch case, for/while loop, recursion functions etc. You have no reason to use them. They don't exist in Jia too. JB hates them too.

He is literally always laughing in every video

I feel like the point of forward declarations is to cut down on includes, not tricking the compiler into accepting mutual and circular dependencies. It's a trick that's only available because .h files exist and need some help to not be hogs.

yeah, sanest take in here

Yeah, feels like he conflates mediocrity of the visualization tool with the codebase itself.

@ndy-dp1bh I honestly don't get people like you, or the guy in the video. I mean---He is literally the irony of his own video. He is complaining about mostly meaningless shit without providing any context. I worked on massive projects like these and eventually, if you run it through a dependency graph generator, you will end up with something as ugly as this. I don't know how about YOU, but from the video itself I can't even make out the details of the dependencies and without any in depth analysis it is very naive to claim that it is a "mess" that can be outright simplified. As far as there are no cycles and the dependencies are inverted---It is not a problem. Even if you are doing redundant includes, the compiler will optimize that away.

THIS! He is shooting the messenger. He must mistakenly think that the llvm project wrote the graph visualizer. Doxygen and graphviz are great. Jon does not get it.

Thats not my experience, but i guess youre free to speculate on things you know nothing about.

Not to that degree but it does. You will find people that submit pull requests with a few changes and each change mixes in something that they forgot to do earlier in the same PR. If you tell them to combine and simplify the PR they will look at you funny. They don't know what purpose the git history has in understanding the reason for a change and write crappy commit messages for thousand line diffs. They don't care about 'craft' and we all know a little how it feels. Mind you, I'm using the same approach to write crappy changes as I go along. But when I'm done, I clean up my mess even if it's for my own eyes.

Code should be periodically refactored like you do with your small projects. But with large projects where you have multiple programmers with varying degrees of design pattern knowledge and style, it becomes very difficult to do that. And to go through a codebase that large to refactor will take way too long. Time that no company will allow you to take. They'd rather have you work on projects that other clients are waiting for.

@@cristianstoica4544 yeah I always clean up. I cannot stand leaving code in a mess, for my own sanity. And I try to be as detailed as possible in my commit comments to explain the reason for why something was implemented or refactored in a specific way. I try to leave comments that I would have liked others to have left for me.

Software developers are paid a lot of money to not do this

Not relevant

What makes you think he doesn't?

relax buddy you were what? 4 yrs old during the old days

There is nothing obscuring about it. In fact, people are accusing it of the opposite, of showing an include dependency graph - giving more details they don't feel they need or is useless. If you go read the auto-generated reference documentation then don't be surprised you find reference documentation. Which almost always implies that only parts of it will be useful because usually you only to the reference looking for specifics. Admittedly this is not a pretty (auto-generated) graph, but for any C++ developer it obvious what it is (since it says next to it). If one is perusing the *reference documentation* and *not* looking for an include graph then one wouldn't bother spending time on it. Blow spent more time laughing on this than there most likely ever was spent CPU time on generating the page. I don't know the context from this clip. But if the idea was to learn how to use this Command Line API, then one does not go the reference documentation, but rather documentation actually meant to teach usage, like llvm.org/docs/CommandLine.html#quick-start-guide .. (okay, probably not command line, but codegen flags, but then reference doc is generally the last and not first place to go).

This documentation was produced by people whose job is to make documentation look impressive.

@@dumbfailurekms That “new school” of programming started like 10 years ago or something. Most of it is just extreme hype over some basic concept or idea. And obviously documentation is not there when you want to do something complex beyond glorified demos. I figured out just to do things my own way with barebones programming language - it’s faster and stress-free. Shitty libraries and documentation is not my problem.

@@thewhitefalcon8539 There is so, so many shitty production code out there just because dev’s were not able to figure out how to use certain platform ans just “patched” things together and released just to get this shit off their shoulders. This is modern day programming, nobody cares about quality, the code is barely operational.

Exactly hahah, I couldn’t help but join in. Legit laugh.

I'm no expert but the funny part is that the graph is a tangled mess. Which seems to be a problem with the coding style or the way languages are designed

Yup, the Dunning-Kruger here is astonishing, especially from commenters, but JoBlow too. I doubt most commenters here have done anything more complex than a CSV parser, or a basic web server.

It's funny how you specifically call him "puzzle game developer" to disregard his 30 years of programming experience, including some noticeable achievements (which are hard to underestimate, like making a programming language, and making multiple critically and commercaly acclaimed games (one of which is 3D 1st person open world), from ground up, without any game engine) You definetly have some similar amount of experience to talk like that, right?

@@nerdError0XF Yes.

yeah, and the url is clearly visible in the video. im not sure why more people didnt check. its a stupid graph but it doesnt speak at all of the code quality. maybe people are just looking for a reason to get mad

@@MightyAlex200 How is it even a stupid graph? Because the indegree of some of the nodes is a bit high? Many graphs of such complexity that they are actually useful is bound to have an indegree like that!

100% agree with you. This video is an irony of the exact thing he is complaining about. Holy hell.

@@TootNZ Fully agree with you.

I check the URL but the graph does not automatically show. How do I get that graph to appear?

microservices and singletons, found the OOP corporate slave

ya its not a bs platform game u can shit out on godot these dayz lel.

people dont recommend clean code principles anymore, most of the advice is terrible

The abstraction is the problem. Everyone is so pre-occupied for being "general". It doesn't have to be general, literally just write a fucking separate targeted implementation rather than making abstract functions that work on every platform. That's what leads to shit like this. I work with the unreal engine code base and it's the same shit because they try to make everything super abstract and general and no one (not even the devs by the comments in the code) understands wtf it's doing.

@@astrixx If abstraction is your issue, then you should consider writing your code in Assembly, which is very platform dependent. All programming languages are written as abstractions and you can’t really remove that if you want to port them to different platforms, the problem will always be present at some point - even if it is just a bunch of functions, someone will turn those into an abstraction layer for their project, but now there isn’t any team that is tasked to maintaining the integrity of that code and the likelihood that many individual abstractions will fail is higher. So, it’s better to take the lesser of two evils, or maybe do the Python approach, where the low level code is available, but it’s recommended to use the higher level abstraction in most projects - you can look at the the packages in the os library as one of the best examples, this could be taken all the way down in a library for writing programming languages. Just remember that every language is a trade off between simplicity and deep control of the hardware, so most are extremely abstract and the complexity in undoing those abstractions will be messy.

@@astrixx I completely agree. The desire to abstract everything and utilise generics as much as possible leads to a code that's both unreadable and unmaintainable

AI code will look much, much worse. AI will, for instance, constantly invent new communication protocols. Instead of standardizing, it will constantly obfuscate.

@@lepidoptera9337 Not to mention it'll constantly do stupid shit no one asked for because it's an effing prediction machine not an intelligence

@@lepidoptera9337 in time AI will code quality might trend downwards, since it will train using public repositories like github and in time more and more AI generated code will be in those repos, so it will feed itself the garbage code it produces.

I think so, i dont see it too. You can see it in the wayback machine though

I actually had to use Wayback Machine in order to find it. I wanted to use it for the thumbnail. It's those blue lines in the thumbnail.

well why choose

No thats the whole point of it. They use unintelligent artifical intelligence to save time. That the result is just worth nothing is a sympthom of modern software development.

LLVM use Ai? where did you hear that@@llothar68

Bad documentation on what? The programming language he hasnt done yet and which is in closed beta? Yea right, he should definetly focus on docs right now, very important

You shouldn't do anything else instead, this video is just about ego and pretending to be better than others. These are the types of graphs you get when you follow clean code principles. Some who pretend to be better than other say you have to follow clean code guidelines and other as we can see here say you shouldn't. At the end the only result that really counts is if it works and performs, that's all your future boss will be interrested in, he couldn't care less about the rest.

Why model a state machine with classes

@@dawidkotlinski Nobody, don't try to be smart. Try learning to read the entire text since you clearly did not understand it and chose just one word out of the entire text and responded to that one word. That is exactly the same as randomly shouting pancake. It makes no sense.

@@TheGalantir couldn't agree more. 95% of "tech influencers" are all about that. one of the most complex c++ projects available online, Unreal Engine, is way worse than LLVM in terms of headers and code complexity in general. yet I don't see it failing because of it

For state machines you have to write the states interpreter and them just create tables of rules. This is how they have been written since 1980. There is nothing to mess, not even code to write.

It sounds as if you could write a lot of good jokes with that premise. Have the four of you ever gone fishing? Or rock-climbing? Or tried to assemble IKEA furniture?

Please tell us what happens when you four enter a bar

Facts. Any useful software project is likely to have a dependency graph of this complexity.

I think the point is that *he* would not choose to generate it. But sure, the complexity of the code here might not be the real problem, it's how this "bad attempt at a ball of threads" is not helping anyone. (Except Jon to have a good laugh.)

Is not the fact that "complex code makes complex graphs" that is true, is why make a graph system, that ends making graphs for complex code that are unreadable. And then, have the courage to call that docs! IMO is better to just not show any graph at all, IMO no help is better than bad help.

They - computer science professors and experts

Yes, and some of it is bad, just like some text-based programming is bad. This graph technically contains a lot of information, but none of it use usable for a human.

When writing code you connect a bunch of characters together. It isn't all that different. The good thing about node based is that syntax errors doesn't exist, the bad thing is that nodes and wires take up a lot of space. In the future we will have a middle ground, a code editor where you will be able to write code without the ability to express either syntax or even type errors.

Visual programming is a thing but it is normally a very bad idea because it leads to confusing spaghetti like this. The only reason to use visual programming is if you don't understand text. It's generally much quicker to type than it is to draw the same thing (and you can fit more on the page when it's typed). This video isn't about visual programming though, just a diagram of the codebase.

You are sayin this as if you wrote at least single line of code in your life.

Did you mean to say hellful or helpful? (:

what, did you even think one second before you wrote this?

I can't imagine when a graph of include files like that would ever be useful, even if it's readable. A list of all direct includes and maybe a second list of all indirect includes is useful, but idgaf about those graph relationships in-between.

I don’t think you thought this through big dog.

Thanks, I will sleep better now

i was about to say the same thing. if i was to graph all the signal connections between functions for a program im currently working on.... this is probably what it would look like :x

Its a class dependency graph, which is, to be blunt, a very stupid thing to print out. Usually when you are designing a OOP class system each class depends on dozens of others because you are trying to encapsulate complex things inside it. So you end up with this ridiculous amount of arrows. It might be useful to do it centered on 1 class, kind of like a "find all references", but even the utility of that drawn as a graph is debatable. Drawing it N:N is idiotic. What dependency graphs should really be used for is for module or layer dependencies, where at that level you don't expect one module to depend on too many other ones. Or you might want to quickly identify circular dependencies you might need to deal with. This is pretty much a case of the wrong tool for the job, and Jonathan should know that and explain instead of just laughing at it.

Obvious bait, avoid interacting regardless of what this individual says next. Stay productive everyone ❤

Why should we care what you think either? That’s just opinion, bro, take it easy. You like to waste your time deciphering those messy charts made by “real programmers” that’s fine, just move on.

@@alexandersuvorov2002 I mean, obviously I'm not going to decipher this chart-I have no use for it because I've no current plans to use LLVM as a library-but I suspect that it exists for a reason and conveys valuable information to someone rather than LLVM devs just making extra useless documentation for shits and giggles. That or it's just an entirely automatically generated thing that required no effort to make and which nobody uses. But in that case, I don't see the point of making fun of the LLVM documentation for... having some redundant autogenerated stuff?

@@yaksher Why would you put evidently useless chart as a documentation? Not only they made it impossible to read (just zoom in to see those lines running so close you lose which one leads where), but they also squeezed it and contained in a shape that is hard to read. The problem is that there are folks like yourself who know nothing about LLVM except “2/3 of code uses it” and then start preaching everyone around how incompetent we are and that we should get as good as LLVM team. Zero logic, negligent knowledge, just exaggerated ignorance and insecurity. It was a good laugh and 99% of folks in the industry can relate to what is going on in this vid.

@@alexandersuvorov2002 Given that your reading comprehension is so bad that you think I said 2/3rds and not 1/3rd, I'm not sure why I should care about anything you have to say, but getting into arguments on the internet can be fun, so: I never called anybody incompetent-that's you (by proxy), saying that what the developers of LLVM do isn't "real programming". Nor did I say anybody should get as good as the LLVM team-I just said that by default, I would assume that the LLVM team has some reason for doing what they do (presumably, somebody finds header graphs generally useful, even if this particular one is unlikely to be of much help to anyone), whereas Jonathon Blow is some random game dev who's only credentials are an alright puzzle game and a programming language that is neither available for general use nor notable enough to have a Wikipedia page. I think wanting to shit on a project infinitely more important and impressive than anything you will ever do in your life, as well as immediately rushing to Jonathon Blow's defense with insults is very a much a sign of insecurity in its own right. You're an insecure fanboy dumbass who thinks being loud and annoying makes somebody's opinions about code valuable, rather than - saying something of substance that stands on its own merit - having credentials like having designed something actually useful

It's LLVM, a gigantic compiler toolchain. it contains a C/C++ frontend (Clang) along with many others, a heavy-duty optimizer, backends for many different architectures, and is meant to be extensible. LLVM is used as a backend for many languages, like Swift, Rust, Julia, etc. It's very likely you're running programs compiled with LLVM on your computer. As much as KISS is a good principle, not all things are simple. This entire video is a joke.