Readit NewsAnyway, I'm happy with Ghostty since I switched away from iTerm2 and haven't paid attention to iTerm2 development much.
Did you really forgot why its called rebeccapurple?
It comes at a large cost now, either more money than reasonable for one of the few compatible displays or accept a much worse experience, that is just not good for devices of this price. This is why a big affordable iMac is so necessary, but TC's Apple likes money too much to care about their legacy customers.
After such a long history of Mac OS having better font rendering and in general better graphic stack (Quartz, everything is basically a continuous PDF rendering) feels like a big letdown.
The problem is going to improve as more high-DPI displays are released for sale but it has taken a lot of time because most customers like to focus on other characteristics that are arguably more important for other use cases. There are plenty of premium display that are just good to great but you really have to think how it will work if you buy a Mac, most likely you'll need to compromise, feels bad considering the price of admition...
You are saying Mac are expensive but at the same time the potential buyers cant afford even a cheap 4K monitor? They go by like 200$? now. and even is that group exists.. its not like 2560p is torture on a Mac especially with that BetterDisplay HiDPI, I would bet many would not even notice the difference.
"LLM coding tools are search-based program synthesizers," in my mind this is what compilers are. I think most compilers do far too little search and opt for heuristics instead, often because they don't have an integrated runtime environment, but it's the same idea.
"Plenty of effective engineering tools are stochastic," sure but while a SAT solver might use randomness and that might adjust your time to solve, it doesn't change the correctness of the result. And for something like a fuzzer, that's a test, which are always more of a best effort thing. I haven't seen a fuzzer deployed in prod.
"Determinism comes from external specs and tests," my dream is a language where I can specify what it does instead of how it does it. Like the concept of Halide's schedule but more generic. The computer can spend its time figuring out the how. And I think this is the kind of tools AI will deliver. Maybe it'll be with LLMs, maybe it'll be something else, but the key is that you need a fairly rigorous spec and that spec itself is the programming. The spec can even be constraint based instead of needing to specify all behavior.
I'm not at all against AI, and if you are using it at a level described in this post, like a tool, aware of its strengths and limitations, I think it can be a great addition to a workflow. I'm against the idea that it's a magical English compiler, which is what I see in public discourse.
in your HN comment: “I agree with this comment, but if I wrote more like this my blog post would get less traction.”
Seems like you also not care about the truth.