131–140 of 302 posts
Generals. I never played this one. 2003? So you have to buy it on steam then this installer will allow you to play it on iPad?
Generals. I never played this one. 2003? So you have to buy it on steam then this installer will allow you to play it on iPad?
It needs the assets from the original game. The creator of this project can’t legally redistribute those assets, so you have to provide them yourself.
IMHO, this is an actual good use of what sounds like a person guiding a model to do a mass conversion. Although, I wish the porting docs were a little wordsmithed by a human, the AI generated text style is grating. The stakes are low, it’s mostly for fun and you can iterate on it. Compare this with Bun which was just like, “hey we converted everything to Bun to Rust from Zig, of course it works, what could possibly g…
I don't really get the Bun thing. Bun is running Claude Code which is probably the single most actively used development app there is. You say this was a bad use of LLMs, but it's been in production for a while and I haven't heard of any evidence that Claude Code has increased a significantly larger quantity of errors, segfaults, etc, than before.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree that the Bun rewrite is much more reasonable than knee-jerk reactions imply, however: - I don't think Claude Code is using the Rust version yet in their official build - Claude Code is not a particularly complicated piece of software from an engineering perspective (nor it's particularly well-engineered, at least at the moment). So in my book "it runs Claude Code" would be pretty weak evidence that the rewrit…
> - I don't think Claude Code is using the Rust version yet in their official build No, I'm pretty sure it is, actually, since June 17: https://code.claude.com/docs/en/changelog#2-1-181 >> Upgraded the bundled Bun runtime to 1.4 Now, Bun 1.4 doesn't seem to officially exist on https://bun.com/blog or https://github.com/oven-sh/bun/releases , so I can't be 100% sure this is the Rust version. However, I have to do some…
https://grigio.org/bun-1-4-the-controversial-ai-driven-rewri...
> 13,044 unsafe blocks in the resulting Rust code (hand-written Rust projects of similar size average ~73)
Grok is this true?
I've heard the meme that AI written rust code is absurdly full and safe blocks but... that's pretty funny.
Hang on. A claim like that can be verified with a single grep! Give me a minute...
$ rg -U "unsafe\s+\{" . | wc -l
10551
IMHO, this is an actual good use of what sounds like a person guiding a model to do a mass conversion. Although, I wish the porting docs were a little wordsmithed by a human, the AI generated text style is grating. The stakes are low, it’s mostly for fun and you can iterate on it. Compare this with Bun which was just like, “hey we converted everything to Bun to Rust from Zig, of course it works, what could possibly g…
This is quite the understatement. Actually, it's probably the understatement of the year.
"Pretty good, not bad, great use case".
Dude. Fable fucking did what?
Very cool. One big caveat with iPad and mobile, though, is battery usage. I strongly suspect that power consumption is the reason that a number of games made it to Mac, but not iPad.
Well interface on mobile devices vs traditional computers is a bit different. Game devs can’t even have consistent controller support. Supporting touch is almost never worth it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes! It's infuriating. I've tried prohibiting them in my AGENTS.md but it's not 100% effective. --- AGENTS.md --- ## Plain words, not jargon Don't use jargon-as-shorthand. Say what you actually mean. - Don't say "load-bearing assumptions". Say "the assumptions the xyz depends on". - Don't say "cross-service". Name both services, e.g. "whether the X service can derive duration without calling the Y service". "Cross-X"…
Yeah, I wonder if part of the reasoning is built around those phrases, and therefore it can't get rid of them easily. > "now I have the full picture" I always interpreted that phrase as a sort of marker to delimit the phase in which it explores the codebase and gathers information from the phase in which it implements the changes. Not sure if it's still done, but I think some months ago there was discussion that some…
> (tap-select, drag-box, long-press deselect, two-finger scroll, pinch zoom) This is another "AI-ism" I noticed, mostly in coding agents - they seem to be very fond of making up new "compound nouns" (and occasionally verbs) to sum up relatively complex and specific concepts into single noun phrases. I wasn't sure if it's to save tokens or if the AI uses this to get a concise "identifier" for a concept that it can ref…
Yes! It's infuriating. I've tried prohibiting them in my AGENTS.md but it's not 100% effective. --- AGENTS.md --- ## Plain words, not jargon Don't use jargon-as-shorthand. Say what you actually mean. - Don't say "load-bearing assumptions". Say "the assumptions the xyz depends on". - Don't say "cross-service". Name both services, e.g. "whether the X service can derive duration without calling the Y service". "Cross-X"…
On another note, I find AI instructions like this (e.g. "Don't hype findings. Skip "a critical finding changes everything",...") more harm than good in my own uses. It changes behavior in subtle ways that makes it less predictable to me. I'd rather it has its own AI-isms and quirks, that I've fully gotten used to, and I know what to expect. I know when it says certain things, in certain ways, that's what I think it means. Quirks and AI-isms don't annoy me, I get used to how it states things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes! It's infuriating. I've tried prohibiting them in my AGENTS.md but it's not 100% effective. --- AGENTS.md --- ## Plain words, not jargon Don't use jargon-as-shorthand. Say what you actually mean. - Don't say "load-bearing assumptions". Say "the assumptions the xyz depends on". - Don't say "cross-service". Name both services, e.g. "whether the X service can derive duration without calling the Y service". "Cross-X"…
Is "jargon-as-shorthand" not exactly that? On another note, I find AI instructions like this (e.g. "Don't hype findings. Skip "a critical finding changes everything",...") more harm than good in my own uses. It changes behavior in subtle ways that makes it less predictable to me. I'd rather it has its own AI-isms and quirks, that I've fully gotten used to, and I know what to expect. I know when it says certain things…