thevinter

sounds like we should introduce a land tax :)

Do you have any sources? OP claims that it *also* affects Open VSX

Better tested software duh

While, in general, I would agree, I fail to see how this point is relevant to the situation at hand.

What is being argued is that, currently, there's a hiring crisis across many industries, that affects even highly qualified people.

What you said would be relevant only if applied to today's market, not to the early 2000s.

Just to clarify: the *team* of Deno is joining cloudlflare. Deno as a project is being discontinued instead.

> I was initially skeptical that this would work. And if it did, it would require hours to complete with dead ends along the way.

> But it turns out it completed the task easily in 40 minutes with 0 deaths and minimal complications.

First of all, the fact that the article talks about "speeding up" the rust compiler doesn't automatically mean that the compiler is "slow"[0].

Now, is rustc slower than e.g. clang? by how much? why?

Those are different (and complicated) questions. It really depends on what you're compiling, but I'd say rustc can be 1-5x slower (maybe more at times?).

The reasons are many and varied, but in general rust compilation is slower because the compiler is doing way more things compared to C (monomorphization, complex trait resolution + type inference, borrow checker..)

[0]: Also I'd argue that "slow" without a concrete point of reference is a meaningless term in this context.

I'm surprised you didn't get any. I wouldn't have any issues in saying that I don't.

I also had similar feelings recently. I think the article is good and captures many of the issues I have with the current state of AI development, but I feel like the conclusion/reaction is somewhat exaggerated.

Of course if someone wants to stop using AI completely that's a completely valid decision[0], but I somewhat feel like AI is just a tool that can be easily misused.

I constantly have to review giant PRs and I noticed that I'm handwaving them more and more often. We went from almost no commit messages to walls of text that no one reads. We're starting to become bottlenecked on reviews because code is coming out too fast.

But at the same time, these are mostly issues stemming from a lack of understanding of why some of the standards/processes existed in the first place. If a developer thinks the commits have to be written just to tick a checkbox, they won't care about making them readable.

And at the same time, I'm getting a lot of value from AI, in tasks that do not necessarily have such adverse effects:

- I can create quick tools to test something, or parse/process some data. In these instances code quality is not important and I don't really want to spend hours on developing it myself (just to feel accomplished?)

- I can research issues in our codebase by just providing a log file. It's not always gonna be accurate or correct but it often gives me a very good starting point, almost always quicker than I could've done it myself

- While I do not use AI to completely generate ticket descriptions, asking it to generate me a body containing the relevant code snippets and references allows me to focus on verifying that what I'm writing is correct and understandable.

Etc etc.

So I don't know if it's just the nature of my work, the fact that I have a different skillset, or different priorities. But it somehow feels weird to me wanting to completely abandon AI just because in some cases it can lead to frustrating consequences.

[0]: I too just started a new project where I'm forcing myself to use absolutely no AI!

> log-in with X

No thanks? Also why do you even need a login?

Claude Cowork is also a better harness than GitHub Copilot. Many such cases. I never mentioned coding being the only goal.

GitHub Copilot is an incredibly limited tool compared to any real harness, and I'm so tired about all of these studies that claim a lack of efficiency while at the same time doing everything in their power to shoot themselves in the foot.

Also, it's insane to me that this whole article has been written without specifying anywhere the models being used.

Like, of course you're not gonna be productive if all you have is Sonnet 4.6???

Roughly 5-10$ for 10h, assuming you few-shot it.

Price per hour:

- 3.8 Flash TTS, standard: $0.81

- 3.8 Flash TTS, batch: $0.41

- 3.8 Flash‑Lite TTS, standard: $0.54

- 3.8 Flash‑Lite TTS, batch: $0.27

I'm sure this was already easily doable for years by using plain and boring computer vision

Ohhh. I just saw the ChronoWiki banner and clicked on it thinking it was a redirect. My bad!