> I've put some serious work into vibe-coding them. Months of work, infinite polish, infinite revisions, without writing a single line of code.
Not being pedantic, but this is not "vibe-coding", as other commenter and blog post means it at least. Parent emphasize lack of work, polish, revisions:
> They don't care about the code they push. They generate, prune, generate, prune in 10kloc increments. They're apathetic to others who might need to use this code and expect some kind of consistent architecture/interface.
> This isn't to say all LLM users don't care about their work, but that there are far more people who are happy to push slop and take credit than the reverse.
Quite right. I bemoan shortsightedness of managerial types often, but too many fellow techies had assume that gravy ride will last forever. In eyes of management we have not the same leverage now.
Competition. Using my open source projects directly doesn't kill my employment. AI company explicitly say they want to put me out of work, using my code aginst me.
If you have time, people, resources for such you might also interest in more elaborate variation, my favorite https://killerqueenarcade.com/fieldgame Three different win condition, and one player have special role as "queen bee". Myself have only played arcade version unfortunately.
Need time and effort to ensure junior docs are thorough. Usually multiple revision in my experience. This require acceptance from management that "just write code fast" is not a success path.
Not a good look. But to precise, user had already second-highest score long prior to period of posting AI work. In that case AI answers did not affect ranking.
> but in an implicit structure that 'leader' is quickly sidelined when people figure out the quality of their decisions are poor
More likely to end up in turf war unless exist legible means to transition leadership. Some members will stick with old leader for various reason, some will push for new, some will be unawares and courted to choose their side. Person in leadership does not most likely give it up quietly and immediately.
> Versions 5.2.12, 5.4.3 and later have been signed with Jia Tan's OpenPGP key . The older releases have been signed with Lasse Collin's OpenPGP key .
It must be assume that before acquiring that privilege, they also contributed code to project. Probably most was to establish respectable record. Still could be malicious code going back someways.
Sum type is key, called "discriminated union" sometimes generally. In Rust this is an `enum`. Simulated in some languages as tuples with tag first element. Discrete number of states, attaching information only relevant to each single state. Thus, never have invalid combination of other fields.
Agree, it is Curse of Lisp mixed in NIH syndrome. Syntax of cond* is no more straightforward than that of pcase. As was pointed out on mailing list. Awkward decision by maintainers to keep both into core.
Very frustrating that any place where I can store code has way more security than what's more important to me: place where I store my money. Financial companies still using SMS for 2FA!
Not being pedantic, but this is not "vibe-coding", as other commenter and blog post means it at least. Parent emphasize lack of work, polish, revisions:
> They don't care about the code they push. They generate, prune, generate, prune in 10kloc increments. They're apathetic to others who might need to use this code and expect some kind of consistent architecture/interface.
> This isn't to say all LLM users don't care about their work, but that there are far more people who are happy to push slop and take credit than the reverse.