DennisL123

I wish the article was written in a better way. It throws put many percentages in different contexts. 50-26-37-41- …

Not saying any particular number is wrong, just wishing it was a clearer way of writing.

There’s something missing in the discussion. Building software is about achieving outcomes, not about generating output, ie tokens. Yet, the ai business case is selling output, obviously. Not sure how to reconcile the two. Ideas?

Use FOOD30 for 30% off.

In a world without AI/LLMs/agents the rewrite would have been major news how much better software gets when ported to Rust.

Yes, been using it for 18’ish months. Works great.

Now, that’s a Commodore phone I can get behind.

not so sure about this one.

<snark> Arguably the one thing C++ is great at is its type system. Makes total sense to cast it away. </snark>

> Friend, you’re diabetic. Your survival is ultimately your own responsibility. Prepare yourself for a few hard truths.

This.

Does the policy fix the issue of many low quality PRs being submitted? Unlikely.

Will it fix a related but different problem? Likely.

Gotcha. It seemed though from the replies on the github ticket that at least some of the problem was unrelated to effort settings.

Happy to have my mind changed, yet I am not 100% convinced closing the issue as completed captures the feedback.

If agents can already read and rewrite code, literate programming might actually be unnecessary. Instead of maintaining prose alongside code, you could let agents generate explanations on demand. The real requirement becomes writing code in a form that is easily interpretable and transformable by the next agent in the chain. In that model, code itself becomes the stable interface, while prose is just an ephemeral view generated whenever a human (or another agent) needs it.