Sridhar Ratnakumar

I don't think Rust is the best programming language for LLMs. The only reason why Greg said this is because Rust limits the LLM from making mistakes by not compiling shitty code, but the LLMs still suggest using unsafe! to bypass security rules. Therefore, I would say that Go is the best — if there is any "best" language for LLMs. Since LLMs are based on next-token prediction, it's more important that the code looks almost the same to get a good result. Go was designed to make every app around the globe look almost the same; for instance, there is only one way to make a loop compared to Rust, which has at least five that I could think of (loop, for, while, while let, and map). I want the best language to be rust tho

I'm not very happy with the code quality and I think agents bloat abstractions, have poor code aesthetics, are very prone to copy pasting code blocks and it's a mess, but at this point I stopped fighting it too hard and just moved on. The agents do not listen to my instructions in the AGENTS.md files. E.g. just as one example, no matter how many times I say something like: "Every line of code should do exactly one thing and use intermediate variables as a form of documentation" They will still "multitask" and create complex constructs where one line of code calls 2 functions and then indexes an array with the result. I think in principle I could use hooks or slash commands to clean this up but at some point just a shrug is easier. Yes I think LLM as a judge for soft rewards is in principle and long term slightly problematic (due to goodharting concerns), but in practice and for now I don't think we've picked the low hanging fruit yet here.

I have decided that NixOS is unnecessary I just need home-manager, hyprland, my dotfiles, and I have the freedom to distro hop to whatever I want

A bespoke software revolution? I don't buy it. It'll exist. It already exists. Small consultants and big consulting firms have made custom software for years. It almost always sucks. It’s bloated, confusing, and because the client pays, it’s built wrong in all the ways. Who’s excited about bespoke software? Software makers! Of course they're excited about building bespoke software — that's what they do. X is full of them. Your feed is full of people who love making software talking about making software. Of course they’re excited about the revolution. Echo, echo, echo... Most people don’t like computers. Nobody in tech wants to say that out loud. People tolerate computers. They use them because they have to. Given the choice, most would rather not think about them at all. So when someone suggests that AI means everyone will build their own custom tools, ask who "everyone" is. The three-person accounting firm drowning in client paperwork? They want the paperwork gone, not a new system to maintain. The regional logistics company with 40 trucks? They want the routes optimized, not Joe spouting off about this new system he’s been messing around with. The law firm billing 70-hour weeks? They want leverage on their time, not a software project to design. They don’t hate technology. But building and maintaining their own critical systems isn’t their wheelhouse, regardless of how much faster and easier it’s become. It's another job on top of the job. Will these people use AI? Absolutely, for all sorts of things. Will some outliers go deep and build real custom systems? Sure, but they're almost always people who already had some pull toward software. The curiosity was already there. They were dabblers before. Giving everyone access to software building tools doesn't mean everyone becomes a builder. A powerful excavator doesn't turn a homeowner into a contractor. Most people just want the hole dug by someone else. They don’t want the responsibility either.

Zed is the only IDE that is worth using.