Ren

I don’t use loops, skills, fancy orchestration, plugins or anything like that. I raw dog the agent with its default harness, I read the code, and I’m shipping more than ever to production for real projects used by real people. Sometimes if it’s a low risk part of the application I might skip reading the code but only sometimes. I think most are either lying about the amount of value they are creating or just having fun while understanding they aren’t creating value but failing to distinguish that to their audience.

I find that is you are going to generate a bunch of code, knowing the interfaces, structs, and functions will lead to much better outcomes. Being the bottleneck is ok, your ideas are not that great.

@jordankdalton @ThePrimeagen @beginbot I do not get it, can you repeat that?

@ThePrimeagen @beginbot Cognitive debt…

Comprehension Debt is the new Tech Debt

some people that are linus-wannabe are just looking for an excuse to be a pos prick

One habit I see a lot, and have to push back on, is taking a tool's shortcomings and reselling them as a "puzzle game" which is "fun" to solve. Take vim. I constantly see people praise it not for what actually makes it good, but by taking the things it's bad at and turning them into a puzzle to have "fun" solving. I've had people tell me how "fun" it was to build a macro to handle some one-off text-refactoring problem. But when I looked at what they were doing and how long it took, my honest reaction was: I could have done that in Sublime in a minute with multiple cursors, or just written a quick script. To be clear, I'm not saying text editors don't matter to your workflow. I'm questioning the near-religious devotion people have to a tool because it gives them a "hacker vibe"—which is basically the whole appeal for newcomers to vim or emacs. That's what I mean by "invisible tools". When you're proficient with your editor of choice—whatever it is—it disappears into the background. But the moment it can't handle something easily, it stops being invisible. What baffles me is that so many people treat that friction—the effort of working around a tool's limitations—as the "fun" part, and then advertise it as evidence that the tool is great. I know plenty of things wrong with my own editor of choice: Sublime. I don't dress those flaws up as fun little puzzles to solve. I just get annoyed that it lacks the tools I actually need, forcing me to write a plugin or reach for a separate program to write to transform text the way I want. If people find vim, emacs, or whatever genuinely good and productive, I'm not going to criticize them for using it. People are most comfortable with what they know. But that same familiarity blinds them to their tools' flaws, and leads them to celebrate those flaws, flaunting them as games. Another example in this same vein is when people advocate for terminal apps over GUIs. If you're stuck in a terminal all day, then I completely get the obvious advantage, but most programmers aren't stuck in a terminal all day. From those people, one of the criticisms of GUI apps tends to be: "I can't navigate them with the keyboard alone". Okay? That doesn't make GUI apps inherently bad. It just means the GUIs people build aren't good enough to be keyboard-navigable. There's nothing inherently impossible about making a GUI work with a keyboard, rather it's just that most people never bother, because they don't realize how much more productive keyboard navigation is than reaching for the mouse. And this is a common mistake: people look at the current state of a category of tools and assume its current limitations are inherent, when really no one has put in the work to make those tools better. A good tool is and ought to be invisible—striving to make such tools.

“not a personal criticism but fuck that guy” is some early internet beef energy. what a shit show.

@CP23950074 @gunnarmorling this only makes sense when you have nothing to be worried about in the future.

@gunnarmorling Язык - это инструмент. Он может быть удобным для решения одной задачи и совершенно неудобным для другой. Создатель языка может быть кем угодно и придерживаться каких угодно взглядов - язык не станет от этого хуже. Менять мнение о языке из-за взглядов автора - small dick energy.

Honestly impressive how much of a disservice to a programming language a single blog post by its creator can do. As they say, trust takes a long time to be established but it's destroyed very quickly.

@ThomasRPapp @kellabyte a lot of words you said for nothing of value ...

@kellabyte No, it's social science and not understanding power dynamics or differences in vantage/perspective is the reason your expectations are a naive form of equality instead of equity.

Maybe the lead of Zig should follow his own code of conduct

I have never actively wanted a programming language to fail but thanks to Andrew Kelley's scurrilous, outrageous, classless post on @jarredsumner 's bun rewrite, I got there. Port every project from Zig to Rust.

Zed cannot undo file delete action. There is no fucking way..

its not just fable tho, the entire claude stack has gone full retard.

postgrest not having transaction support make me believe this isn't a serious software. using rpc cop out, they are essentially throwing the problem to us instead of solving it. postgrest will suck, and so will supabase.

The Fable ban has officially been lifted! Should hopefully be live on Anthropic's APIs and Claude Code soon

still think you don’t need an ideas guy?

just revisited windows 11 on my previous laptop. holy fucking shit, i cannot believe how much of a dogshit this is.

@jarredsumner atp it is faster to ask fable to generate these for you

Filming Bun v1.4 video on June 24th. Tentative Bun v1.4 release date: July 7th

magixx.

All the devs whining about fable being banned need to go hit the gym and stfu

@jarredsumner mr. graphs and mrs. benchmarks

who should be in the bun 1.4 video

We had early access to Anthropic’s Fable 5, but did not run verified Semi-Private ARC-AGI-1/2/3 evals due to their new data-retention terms for Mythos-class models. We’re working with Anthropic to keep ARC verification data private. Scores will come once we can run them safely.