Also kudos for putting up a screenshot. I've looked through a lot of projects claiming to do similar to this, but there are so many different interpretations that can make it not a good fit for me, and when there aren't any screenshots the barrier of seeing it in action is often too high to where I only try one or two before I give up and stop wasting time. Having a screenshot made it so I could check it out quickly.
The screenshot is a little rough, so a few tips for next time:
1. Shrink your terminal window down a bit as a huge view is harder to follow
2. Keep the screenshots at full resolution so they are easier to read. The reduced resolution and the original screen being huge makes the text pretty difficult to read, even zoomed in to 200%
3. Use something like screenkey (or throw some subtitle text up or something) so the viewer knows what keys you are pressing and/or what you're trying do. It's pretty hard to follow along without those cues.
Great work, and thanks for sharing!
It's also just not as good at being self-directed and doing all of the rest of the agent-like behaviors we expect, i.e. breaking down into todolists, determining the appropriate scope of work to accomplish, proper tool calling, etc.
Codex is the best at following instructions IME. Claude is pretty good too but is a little more "creative" than codex at trying to re-interpret my prompt to get at what I "probably" meant rather than what I actually said.
They are (of course) not foolproof and very well may miss something, so people need to evaluate their own risk/reward tradeoff with these extensions, even after reviewing them with AI, but I think they are pretty useful.
By my reading, it's not merely that the standard doesn't require the "d" suffix, it's that the standard doesn't allow the "d" suffix, and the code won't compile on anything but gcc.
1. Is "anything but gcc" actually supported by the project? Do they have a goal of supporting other compilers or possibly an explicit decision not to support other compilers?
2. If they do support other compilers, how did the "d" suffix make it in the first place? That's something I would expect the dev or CI to catch pretty quickly.
3. Does gcc behave any differently with the "d" suffix not there? (I would think a core dev would know that off the top of their head, so it's possible they looked at it and decided it wasn't worth it. One would hope they'd comment on the PR though if they did that). If it does, this could introduce a really hard-to-track-down bug.
I'm not defending Oracle here (in fact I hate Oracle and think they are a scourge on humanity) but trying to approach this with an objective look.
I know first-hand the frustration of having PRs ignored and it can be quite demoralizing, so I do feel for the author. It sounds like the author is getting to a place of peace with it, and my advice from having been down that path before is to do exactly that, and find something else interesting to hack on.
I will definitely refine my screenshot demo!