kvark

It sounds more like "path" borrowing than "group" borrowing to me, but the idea is great! Quite eye opening!

One minor thing is that I'm not sure why they had to have "in" keyword for sub-borrows. Wouldn't it be more consistent to see "entity &world.entities[?]" instead of "entity in world.entities[]"? We'd consistently get the borrow "&" symbol and open the door for some contracts on what index (range) is affected.

Or maybe open-source development is just poorly compatible with AI workflow? Today, projects may need a community, an issue tracker, but pull requests are becoming less important.

I suspect the ban of AI in established projects to be a very complex decision. Even if core developers would like to use AI, they don't want to review all of the AI-generated code from the larger community. So the only consistent way to preserve sanity is to declare that nobody would use it. Good luck enforcing it though!

We have 2 paths here:

- either evolve our UI systems for computers and let them operate efficiently, i.e. converting everything to API calls . Frontier labs are pushing for this, starting with the Chrome plugin that Claude Cowork mandates.

- or make AI systems use the screen like humans do - what the article is arguing for

Both of these paths are possible. One of them is much more efficient than the other in the long term. Another one may be inevitable.

We had a process at one company where you had to create an issue before filing a PR. I found it most non-sensical and introducing friction for no good reason. Very surprised to see the author suggesting it in the article.

Review is indeed the main bottleneck now for open source, and we need to solve it. Introducing more friction is hardly helping.

Author of the benchmark here, as well as Meganeura - one of the tested frameworks. Results are constantly being refined, gaps are filled, but it's hard to get more hardware coverage by myself. Would appreciate someone running it on Intel Arc GPUs, both discreet and integrated. Happy to answer questions about methodology!

Sadly the form doesn't even show up in Firefox. If they want to appeal to computer nerds, gotta anticipate not everyone will be on Blink engine.

The main problem with Vulkan isn't the programming model or the lack of features. These are tackled by Khronos. The problem is with coverage and update distribution. It's all over the place! If you develop general purpose software (like Zed), you can't assume that even the basic things like dynamic rendering are supported uniformly. There are always weird systems with old drivers (looking at Ubuntu 22 LTS), hardware vendors abandoning and forcefully deprecating the working hardware, and of course driver bugs... So, by the time I'm going to be able to rely on the new shiny descriptor heap/buffer features, I'll have more gray hair and other things on the horizon.

I've spent years playing with BWT and suffix sorting at school (some work can be found be names of archon and dark). It's a beautiful domain to learn!

Now I'm wondering: in the era of software 2.0, everything is figured out by AI. What are the chances AI would discover this algorithm at all?

I'm not employed by Zed, so I can't answer these questions. But the product itself is great!