jessoteric
Joined 1 year ago
Karma
13
Submissions
9
Member since
Jun 5
Recent submissions
Comment · 9 months ago
Comment · 10 months ago
i've also been using opus 4.5 with lots of heavy rust development. i don't "vibe code", but lead it with a relatively firm hand- and it produces pretty good results in surprisingly complicated tasks.
for example, one of our public repos works with rust compiler artifacts and cache restoration (https://github.com/attunehq/hurry); if you look at the history you can see it do some pretty surprisingly complex (and well made, for an LLM) changes. its code isn't necessarily what i would always write, or the best way to solve the problem, but it's usually perfectly serviceable if you give it enough context and guidance.
Comment · 10 months ago
> Of course, you can declare that the world itself is inherently sinful and imperfect, and is not ready for your beautiful theories
i see we are both familiar with haskellers (friendly joke!)
Comment · 10 months ago
i find it's pretty rare to have a project that only consists of one or two languages, over a certain complexity/feature threshold
Comment · 10 months ago
IME this has been significantly reduced in newer models like 4.5 Opus and to a lesser extent Sonnet, but agree it's still sort of bad- mainly because the question you're posing is bad.
if you ask a human this the answer can also often be "yes [if we torture the library]", because software development is magic and magic is the realm of imagination.
much better prompt: "is this library designed to solve this problem" or "how can we solve this problem? i am considering using this library to do so, is that realistic?"
Comment · 1 year ago
That seems like a good idea... hmm.
Comment · 1 year ago
This right here. Every time I talk to someone claiming 2-4x multipliers, after a few rounds of conversation they eventually admit "yeah you have to learn when to stop when it's no longer productive, you get a feel for when it's veering into wasting your time".
It can't be both. It can't be 2-4x multiplier _and_ be wasting your time to the extent that you have to "get a feel for when it has been wasting your time".
Comment · 1 year ago
the main issue is that you end up looking down the barrel of begging claude, for the fifth time this session, to do it right- or just do it yourself in half the total time you've wasted so far.
at least, this is what i typically end up with.
Comment · 1 year ago
isn't the issue that sometimes a given scanner can't know from where the package is sourced?
like if I'm scanning an arbitrary linux system, and I see `libssl.so.1` but I don't see it in the local package manager, I don't really have an option other than to call it generic.
I do agree that "generic" seems to be WAY overused though. Maybe tools that report on SBOMs, like FOSSA or whatever, should emit warnings to users about "generic" PURLs.
it's a genius