xlii

Actually nobody is preventing you from building library with LLM.

On top of it you can in parallel work on the library, groom its shape and then have another workflow integrating that library into bigger library and so on.

The biggest issue I always had was integration between components. Today's that's free lunch. You can extract, abstractize, re-integrate things for free.

Long before LLMs there was a concept of Big Ball of Mud. The slop existed before LLMS and all software eventually rotten. Today just as LLMs whip out faster the code rot happens faster too.

But engineers learned way into how not to make systems decay fast and (not surprisingly) the same methods work just as well with LLMs.

I find LLMs like a blender. If you are ignorant in use everything will become a tasteless grey sludge. But it's a indispensable tool in a kitchen that makes many things simple, easy and tasty.

I never thought about the process like that but it makes sense.

In the "Age of LLMs" I wrote many pieces of software that are scrapped and never seen the light of day.

For example knowledge graph editor or a personal task manager that visualizes them using railroad-diagrams style.

Right now I'm working on a Glamorous Toolkit and Emacs mashup that uses Haskell for fully moldable experience. And it's not like I'm uniquely equipped to do it, nor it wouldn't be possible to do few years back. But I'm the one who picked it up and thanks to LLMs I can have progress in days instead of weeks.

And if it ever is released and you ever have chance to run it it won't be a random AI slop because random AI slop wouldn't envision something like that. That'll be 100% me inside.

I think I'm missing something but I've have an option to use <anything>@<ident>.domain.com for couple years now.

I don't find it that useful though and usually go with standard alias i.e. user+<anything>@domain.com

As for single sender locking - not sure how useful that is. I mean you can get github.com email or notifications.github.com so you miss half of them?

And there is a super power to it.

It's possible to write the whole system only by defining the types.

The "glue" can be sloppy but as long as it keeps on the edges the output is most often fine.

Recently I'm on the fence about Rust vs OCaml (but plan to write about it soon) because I have ~700k LoC in Rust but my workflow starts to get seriously dragged down by compilation/tests in isolated worktrees.

I recently also dab with Gluon (as embeddable type safe scripting) and rule-based-development for maximum code control/agents output leverage.

I don't see how this is better, my first thoughts: more difficult to print, more difficult to scan, vulnerable to light shifts (imagine trying to scan a can with colored bar code in a club with flashing lights) and impossible to print in some technolgies.

Bar code won't go away exact for the reason it's super simple to scan and print. Even QR codes can't stand that (and if you tried scanning yourself grocery in soft bag with barcode in the corner which gets crumpled you know what I mean).

Upvoting. I quit smoking many years ago with that book. Cost me like $8.

It felt surreal to quit after 1 last smoke as book promised at the beginning. Hadn't had craving since then.

Recommended to many people. For some it helped for some it didn't though.