this post was submitted on 16 Oct 2026
179 points (88.4% liked)

Linux

15282 readers
343 users here now

A community for everything relating to the GNU/Linux operating system (except the memes!)

Also, check out:

Original icon base courtesy of lewing@isc.tamu.edu and The GIMP

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Mikina@programming.dev 2 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

You do that inherently when you are writing the code. Every line you write has already had that focus, because you had to come up with it.

That you should also not trust every line of the compiled assembly after you wrote the code, and check it lime by line, is an extremely stupid argument.

Of course, you should get someone else, with a fresh/unbiased opinion to review your code too, but just the act of figuring out every line you write is in some sense a rewiev, that there is at least a plan or reason why it was written.

AI just randomly generates code without thought or reason, and you have to check everything. Unlike assembly generated from code.

[–] tatterdemalion@programming.dev 0 points 5 days ago (1 children)

That you should also not trust every line of the compiled assembly after you wrote the code, and check it lime by line, is an extremely stupid argument.

I guess it's good that no one is making that argument then.

[–] tyler@programming.dev 0 points 5 days ago (1 children)

that is the argument linus is making... he is comparing a deterministic tool (a compiler that outputs the same assembly every time) to a non-deterministic tool and saying that they are the same type of tool. that require the same level of review, when they do not.

he is comparing a deterministic tool with a non-deterministic tool

Yes, but that's not the argument Mikina was stating. Linus was never advocating for reading assembly line by line. Linus was using that as a satirical example, not suggesting anyone should actually do that.