51–60 of 62 posts
You often don't even need cloning, for instance in the Ruby ecosystem, for the Pundit gem `bundle show pundit` tells you `/Users/vemv/.rbenv/versions/3.4.5/lib/ruby/gems/3.4.0/gems/pundit-2.3.2` which is a vanilla dir (non-zipped), ready to be added to the Claude context.
Why would I care? I write libraries to help humans write code. If an LLM was actually good at writing code, it would engage with the library in the same way as a human. If it can't, that's not a problem with the library. I don't lose anything if an LLM doesn't use a library I've written.
Agents are users now, and agent-friendly docs and libraries will be standard practice for the tools that want to thrive through broader industry adoption.
Similarly, perhaps you wouldn't care if your website wasn't easily parsable by crawlers, but if you'd like your work to appear in search results you might like to include a sitemap or structure the HTML a little.
Why would I care? I write libraries to help humans write code. If an LLM was actually good at writing code, it would engage with the library in the same way as a human. If it can't, that's not a problem with the library. I don't lose anything if an LLM doesn't use a library I've written.
Why would I care? I write libraries to help humans write code. If an LLM was actually good at writing code, it would engage with the library in the same way as a human. If it can't, that's not a problem with the library. I don't lose anything if an LLM doesn't use a library I've written.
I couldn't agree more. I don't want my code included in crappy vibe coded software.
If coding agents are the new entry point to your library, how sure are you that they’re using it well? I asked this question to about 50 library maintainers and dev tool builders, and the majority didn't really know. Existing code generation benchmarks focus mainly on self-contained code snippets and compare models not agents. Almost none focus on library-specific generation. So we built a simple app to test how well…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hope we don’t have to challenge it! We’re trying to build a similar kind of experience but for both “sides” of the problem: software provider and software users/integrators.
I guess that's why patents are annoying. I have been Mr. Open Source and against intellectual property for most of the past 15 years. But with AI companies rampantly taking everyone's work and repurposing it, and with VC companies not being very eager to invest in open source, I'm taking a different tack with my AI ventures. My first two companies are radically open source, and no one cared: https://github.com/Qbix h…
Phase 2:
7. Sell shares to MS, Oracle, IBM
8. They do most of the Enterprise Sales
See also: https://patentskart.com/how-to-invalidate-a-patent-in-10-eas...
It's a neat idea. But if, as we're told, LLMs will get better and better, something like this, in theory, will be increasingly unnecessary. I feel like most of the problems with AI using a library is how we mix code and implementation. C, C++ got it right (even if by accident) with separating specification from implementation. Instead of lamenting the design trend of not maintaining this split, for my own code I wrot…
Respectfully, I disagree. It is much faster and cheaper to direct an LLM to add a call to a battle-tested library that encapsulates complex logic than it is to design and implement that logic from scratch, even if it’s capable of that. We’re betting on almost the exact opposite idea: we can make agentic software engineering cheaper and more reliable by making it easy for LLMs to write, find, and integrate libraries a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I couldn't agree more. I don't want my code included in crappy vibe coded software.
Thats not how FOSS works.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thats not how FOSS works.
I get that, but I'm not going to do extra work to make sure LLMs use my code. If they want to that's fine I guess, but my target audience is me. Other people using anything I write is a side effect.