- cross-posted to:
- programming@beehaw.org
- cross-posted to:
- programming@beehaw.org
You must log in or register to comment.
The whole “AI is enough” marketing that the author mentions in the conclusion is total poison. A buddy of mine works at one of the companies involved in this circlejerk and they have the same mandate. Cost is not an issue. Use it for everything.
He said he has to roll the dice all day to get good output from the AI. Its more important they USE THE AI than it is that they PRODUCE GOOD CODE. In fact “good code” is not a thing, in the traditional sense. “Good code” means AI created. His actual title ostensibly has nothing to do with AI, they are producing a totally different thing. But since he works at a company that is benefiting massively from AI investment, his bosses are mandating a worse form of developing because they are now in the business of selling AI rather than what presumably is the product.
It’s like if you were a plumber and your plumbing company merged with a huge factory that makes 90 degree pipe elbows. So they mandated that all plumbing now had to be done by joining together nothing but 90 degree pipe elbows rather than any other fitting. And since its all going to be sealed up inside a wall, who cares? How dare you question this? Are you saying there AREN’T legitimate uses for 90 degree pipe elbows?
We are at an infection point with software. Similar to AWS was about fifteen-twenty years ago, or git. If you ignore it, you’re behind the curve. Now’s the time to experiment, figure out the good and bad. Not all orgs are going face first. Some of us are learning along with it.
Where it shines for me? Really small changes in a complex system. I can’t store all the context all the time. Business requirements, security ones, aesthetic ones. Where it shines is if you suss out small changes thoroughly, it’s a great text generating engine.
All of that said, the side effects of data centers and pump and dump stocks, are absolutely horrid. Hopefully on the other side of it we come to something more sane.
Bun is a TypeScript runtime, like a faster NodeJS.
I guess the target audience is non-coding AI skeptics looking for pseudo-intellectual takes, which appears to be a growing market. Because getting the very first technical detail, and a very basic one at that, this wrong is not a good look.
for anyone like me who could not understand that stupid title
“Call a spade a spade” is a figurative expression. It refers to calling something “as it is”[1]—that is, by its right or proper name, without “beating about the bush”, but rather speaking truthfully, frankly, and directly about a topic;
“Blow smoke” - to speak idly, misleadingly, or boastfully
So it is a reaction to Andrew Kelley’s reaction to bun / anthropic blog post that in their case was reaction to dev community reaction to sloppy rewrite from zig to rust with ai?
Bun’s founder experimented with a massive agentic rewrite from Zig to unsafe Rust.
That experiment was merged days later and is now the official version.Wait, they ai yolo from a memory safe language to an unsafe version of a different memory save language?
Sure, but only 5% of the Rust code is unsafe, which is clearly an improvement. And their plan is to reduce that amount over time.
I’m no fan of AI slop but that point isn’t an issue.
Zig is not as strict as Rust for memory management
Unsafe rust too
yes, but when you make a port from one language to another, usually you want to rewrite it as a translation first, then refactor later with the features that language provides. A port that refactors everything in the first release is too risky.
The fact the translation has unsafe blocks only demonstrates the Zig version is not really safe as per Rust standards.
my comment was just pointing out to unsafe rust blocks used in sloppy rewrite.
