Mabusto

This is amazing, thank you!

This is absolutely true, and was my experience as well, it did take quite a bit of work to get something as functional as windows setup.

I went with Arch and wanted to take a few days to actually go through the Wiki and setup something completely from scratch and learn along the way. I had my laptop next to me and AI was a huge help. I went with Hyprland(Fish for shell, Kitty for terminal, Ashell for my bar, Walker for launcher, Yazi for explorer) and tried installing a bunch of pre-made .config files, but that was a big mistake, just take the time and get everything setup yourself, it's worth it in the long run to learn how all this works under the hood.

I think it's important to point out that my switch was also motivated by a desire to learn about the guts of a linux system and not just go with Ubuntu or a ready made one. I run Ubuntu on a home server and it runs great, but I am a full blown Arch snob now and I could never daily drive it.

I moved to Linux 8 months ago because of how crappy windows 11 has become. One of the things I loved about windows was developing on it, WSL2 was great and I loved just having VS Code connect to it and it’s my own little dev box.

I’ve really enjoyed the switch so far, having attempted it a few times in the past and ended up going back to windows (once in 2003, another in 2012). It’s encouraging to see MS continue to get the developer experience right with improvements like this, but unless they make significant improvements to the OS itself, I won’t be going back.

Agentic coding is the term I’ve been using.

Vibe coding means you have no idea how the code looks or works or the architecture. Agentic coding is the same as regular coding, just you had an agent do most of the typing.

I personally really really don’t like working on a code base where I have no idea what the code is actually doing or looks like and I find even the best models eventually start tripping up on messy bloated code bases, though that takes months now vs days like a year ago. I think we’re still early days in the vibe coding experiment and as vibe coded products push into 50k LOC, you start to see the parasitic drag caused by a messy code base on the agents.

I absolutely love the speed that agents give me!

So what I’ve been doing is working myself in a main branch where I’m just tending to the code and writing high level types and architecture, then spinning up agents into work trees and having them work on specific, focused tasks. Then I get and agent to do a merge into the main branch, fix up conflicts, help me go over design decisions etc.

So it’s trying to get the best of both worlds, I’m getting the speed and also my head is in the code and working on the most challenging / important aspects of the code base so my actual technical skills are always improving.

This is where I’m at as well. A friend recently showed me what opus 5.5 is capable of and it was both awe inspiring and disturbing.

I’ve been using AI as a great pair programming partner for about a year now, but every time I prompt it to write code agentically, it just makes a pile of crap that I end up spending more time fixing. This is so very quickly becoming not the case anymore.

I think core engineering skills are never going away (I’ve been doing this for 25 years and come from a background doing C++ for video games), that you will always need to have a mental model of the code and if you’re going to call yourself “professional” you need to be able to go in and fix/build by hand. But you’re going to get left behind if you aren’t at least willing to eat some humble pie and re-evaluate your views on agentic coding every few months as these tools get better.

Grieve, I know I have, but there is joy on the other side. I used to love getting lost in flow state with Soma.fm playing and the phone unplugged, that is still there, but what that looks like is changing fast and table stakes in this industry has been “adapt or die” for as long as I’ve been in it.

I thought the same thing. I started working full time in Rust back in March and the first few weeks I thought “this is ridiculous, it’s so ugly and hard to read”. My background is in C++ for game development (10y) followed by CTO of a web startup (JS/Python/TypeScript), so I know ugly code!

You absolutely do get used to it and I really like the built in formatters. I would write everything in Rust going forward if I could, it really is a different way of thinking about how to write code. I don’t agree it’s the right tool for every job though.

This is kinda where I’ve landed as well. I find the chat super helpful as a solo dev almost just as a sounding board for ideas and it is good at pointing out things I’m missing or not thinking through completely. I write almost all the code myself, I like the actual physical activity of writing code and find it keeps me engaged mentally for longer stretches.

I’ve also tried the agentic thing, but I find it so draining laying out in such explicit detail exactly what I want and then cleaning up what it’s messed up, like it’s easier to clean it up than just keep prompting and pulling the magic “Do This” lever.

I probably will never code without AI again. I’ve been doing this for 30 years since I was a teenager, was very fortunate in my career and don’t have to work anymore, but I still code and build because I love it, maybe even more so now with AI, but I would absolute hate my life if I was forced to just run agents all day long and never actually write or be the primary thinking driver for code.

This has happened to me with Rust. I read the book, did the interactive tutorials and then started on a small project and couldn’t really code anything!

This is familiar territory for me as I prefer to do a breadth first survey of something I’m trying to learn before digging in to an actual project with depth to make all the mistakes and blunders that make you actually good at something.

AI can still be a huge help here. I don’t really use AI to write the actual code. I will be tooting along, in the flow state, and then bang off a question or request like “how would you write this block of code” “how does this API work?”, and then just take what it says under advisement.

I find as soon as I start accepting what the AI says without critical thinking or just hitting the “apply block” button, it’s time to take a break. I use CoPilot and I barely touch 40% token spend per month and to me it’s the best way to work, I am always engaged, have a full mental model of what I’m working on, and have someone pushing back and criticizing what I’m writing. This gets you out of tutorial hell, but keeps you motivated because you’re not always staring at a blank code window wondering where to start.

I’ve been using Kagi for about a year now and I genuinely get worried that there are no alternatives if it goes out of business. The results are extremely good, especially in the last 4 months. I like their opt in AI summary as well, just add a question mark at the end.

I pay for a lot of things that are free from google/big tech, I’m happy to watch the advertisement driven web implode on itself so we can go back to the idea of a consumer paying a company for a quality product, monetizing peoples attention has been a huge detriment to society.

I think you first need to make an assumption of good faith on the submitter’s part. Yes, someone actively hostile to a repo and trying to sneak in changes will be successful, they can just prompt around the challenge.

I think the bigger picture is there won’t be one catch-all solution and we’ll need to embrace the Swiss cheese model from the world of aviation safety, this is just a suggestion for one layer.

It raises the stakes though. Getting challenged for an AI slop PR isn’t great, but ok, try and redeem yourself. Getting caught trying to cheat that challenge, you might as well just close down your account, like what is the point of even spending tokens to do this? These slop PRs are just people trying to pad their GitHub profiles.

I’m teasing a bit, yes your point is well made, you could just prompt around it. I think the bigger picture is there isn’t going to be some magical panacea that fixes this, we’ll just have to accept some sort of Swiss cheese model, like in the world of aviation safety. This “test” could be just be another layer in the stack.

You’re absolutely right - AI is not just capable, it’s on the leading edge. It’s not about vibes, it’s about results.

(It’s famously not well capable of sounding human)

The foundation points out something that has always been true, but AI has really brought to the forefront, that any contributor, including AI, could potentially not be relied on to maintain this patch in the future.

This is the core of the issue, not that someone uses AI, but that it’s just one of many smells a patch can have that indicates someone doesn’t understand what they’re submitting. You could be breaking variable naming conventions, changing APIs you shouldn’t, making amateur language mistakes, all indicate that yes, maybe the patch does work, but that there are other good reasons to reject it.

A way around this might be to mark a PR as rejected because of AI and then ask the author to point out some part of it they’re particularly proud of and explain in their own words, not a wall of AI text, what this does and why they like it. Just something where the author has to show that they have something an AI can’t, namely taste and an opinion.

As long as I can connect my 3D TV, I can't wait to sip some Juicero and watch Quibi on it.