I think the answer is obvious so maybe you're looking for something different.
More perf means more attempts in parallel with some sort of arbiter model deciding what to pick. This can happen at the token, prompt, or agent level or all of them.
Readit Newsparentheses commented on Ask HN: Imagine coding LLM's 1M times faster; what uses might there be? · Posted by u/wewewedxfgdf
The problem with accepting VC money is they will eventually demand a return on their investment, which means that the forces that drive enshitification will eventually come for Zed in some form. I suspect that we'll see more and more features locked behind a paid subscription and the open core of the editor will become neglected over time.
Here I am on my free-as-in-freedom operating system, making commits with my free DVCS tool in my free programmable text editor, building it with my free language toolchain, using my free terminal emulator/multiplexer with my free UNIX shell. VC backed tools like Warp and Zed that seek to innovate in this space are of zero interest to me as a developer.
Note to Zed: I prefer paid products to enshittened ones.
Please please please, get paid rather than holding on too tightly to making things free forcing future enshittening.
parentheses commented on I'm switching to Python and actually liking it cesarsotovalero.net/blog/... · Posted by u/cesarsotovalero
Bizarre is that you don’t consider it ugly.
Kotlin: constructor is either part of class definition or keyword constructor.
Ruby: initialize
JS: constructor
Python: ______new______, _______init_______
Literally this meme: https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/three-headed-dragon
That's kind of the point. These methods are never meant to be called directly. They're used to desugar.
I think it's fairly short sighted to criticize these. FWIW, I also did that the first time I wrote Python. Other languages that do similar things provide a useful transparency.
parentheses commented on Claude for Financial Services anthropic.com/news/claude... · Posted by u/mildlyhostileux
Why are both AI giants choosing to pay attention specifically to this space out of all other spaces they could choose to focus on?
Because, like engineers, their work requires intelligence and would benefit from highly adaptable software.
Finance and engineering both have a degree of verifiably. Building evals around finance is easier than, e.g., marketing work.
Hey I’ve been trying to get Claude code to generate Final Cut xml myself. Mostly I just have a Claude.md with the FCP xml reference and some guidelines. What does this do differently?
The idea here (I think) is that it (1) can be a program with code used to generate the XML and (2) is typed.
Just by virtue of being a go program it enables even more sophisticated validation and automation if you want to implement it.
parentheses commented on There should be no Computer Art (1971) dam.org/museum/essays_ui/... · Posted by u/glimshe
Humanity's abilities are always enhanced by their tools. This simply changes the judgement of art in the face of easier execution.
Let's say I used a custom power saw to carve a statue faster than ever before and more precisely. Would that reduce my influence and my application of taste? No. I would in fact be able to produce a piece faster and have more room for making more attempts.
Neural network based art tools are all giving us the same thing - easier execution. This means greater production and the ability to try most possibilities. The fact that creating art is more accessible to the public means that more creatives can be in the arena, making for more competition.
Any creator grapples with this change over time. Woodworkers of old prefer their techniques to modern power tools, painters prefer physical media, carvers prefer real blocks of marble/whatever. All of these things have modern digital equivalents, but the establishment of existing artists refuse to leave their posts. They hold their ground that the medium is critical to the art.
Art moves and changes slowly because of this human bias against new solutions. Go to any museum of modern art and you'll find that most of it could have been executed as such 20+ years ago. It's just that art takes time to accept a new way of doing something.
parentheses commented on (On | No) Syntactic Support for Error Handling go.dev/blog/error-syntax... · Posted by u/henrikhorluck
The fundamental thing that try/catch and similar language structures give us is an error _boundary_. I feel that not having one is a weakness of the language. The nesting and syntax all serve the purpose of handling errors neatly. I think it works very well and Go has unsolved the problem.
I am not saying that the mechanism is perfect but it is more useful if we have it than not. IMO it's only weakness is that you never know if a new exception type is thrown by a nested function. This is a weakness for which we really don't have a solid solution - Java tried this with checked exceptions.
Go not using such a paradigm to me is bonkers. Practically every language has such a construct and how we use it best is pretty much convention these days.
parentheses commented on Show HN: SuperUtilsPlus – A Modern Alternative to Lodash github.com/dhaxor/super-u... · Posted by u/dhax_or
What I’d like is a utility library like this, but instead of it being an actual library, be it some utility that generates a single file with exports of the few functions I need. Even just something that would make copy pasting them easier.
As in, I want actual zero dependencies, not even the library itself. The reason: I never want these to randomly update.
OOC, what is the benefit of having a "library" that requires such manual labor to maintain and upgrade?
You'd miss out on CVEs because you don't use the common dependency paradigm.
You'd also miss out on bug fixes if you are not detecting the bug itself.
Help me understand because I'm with you on less dependencies but this does feel a bit extreme.
parentheses commented on Writing Cursor rules with a Cursor rule adithyan.io/blog/writing-... · Posted by u/adithyan_win
I have found Cursor to be frustrating and exhausting to work with, even with my rules file. When it works, it’s like magic. But most of the time, it feels like working with a Jr. dev who has a bit of a concussion. Code review is wearying work, and using Cursor means you’re doing a lot of code review. I have never once gotten into a flow state with it.
That was a long preamble to this question: any senior devs out there (20+ years) who enjoy using Cursor? What’s the trick?
I think one-shotting a full feature is a losing battle today. You have to figure out the best step size for the situation and prompt using components of that size.
My prompts usually resemble actions I could tell a college student — they just have a better understanding of concepts and professional lingo.
The benefit of this approach is that you know the code fairly well. You are staying with the LLM in developing a deeper understanding of the code you'll ultimately create a PR for. Then when there's an incident, you have enough deep knowledge of the code that you can be tactical.
I have found that until I trust AI to develop the code unsupervised, I have to have an equally good mental model of everything AI makes.
I assume the former has massive overhead, but maybe it is worthwhile to keep responsiveness up for everyone.