Using Claude Code to modernize a 25-year-old kernel driver
131–140 of 343 posts
Re: Using Claude Code to modernize a 25-year-old kernel driver
#132I had a suspicion AI would lower the barrier to entry for kernel hacking. Glad to see it's true. We could soon see much wider support for embedded/ARM hardware. Perhaps even completely new stripped-down OSes for smart devices.
What's wrong with exist one?
Re: Using Claude Code to modernize a 25-year-old kernel driver
#133Is Claude code better than ChatGPT?
Re: Using Claude Code to modernize a 25-year-old kernel driver
#134A good case study. I have found these two to be good categories of win: > Use these tools as a massive force multiplier of your own skills. Claude definitely makes me more productive in frameworks I know well, where I can scan and pattern-match quickly on the boilerplate parts. > Use these tools for rapid onboarding onto new frameworks. I’m also more productive here, this is an enabler to explore new areas, and is al…
Then I need to expend extra time following everything it did so I can "fix" the problem.
Re: Using Claude Code to modernize a 25-year-old kernel driver
#135> so I loaded the module myself, and iteratively pasted the output of dmesg into Claude manually, One of the things that has Claude as my goto option is its ability to start long-running processes, which it can read the output of to debug things. There are a bunch of hacks you could have used here to skip the manual part, like piping dmesg to a local udp port and having Claude start a listener.
Even something simple like getting it to run a dev server in react can have it opening multiple servers and getting confused. I've watched streams where the programmer is constantly telling it to use an already running server.
Re: Using Claude Code to modernize a 25-year-old kernel driver
#136Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is more of a reflection of how our profession has not meaningfully advanced. OP talks about boilerplate. You talk about grunt work. We now have AI to do these things for us. But why do such things need to exist in the first place? Why hasn't there been a minimal-boilerplate language and framework and programming environment? Why haven't we collectively emphasized the creation of new tools to reduce boilerplate a…
This is the glaring fallacy! We are turning to unreliable stochastic agents to churn out boilerplate and do toil that should just be abstracted or automated away by fully deterministic, reliably correct programs. This is, prima facie, a degenerative and wasteful way to develop software.
Re: Using Claude Code to modernize a 25-year-old kernel driver
#137Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is the glaring fallacy! We are turning to unreliable stochastic agents to churn out boilerplate and do toil that should just be abstracted or automated away by fully deterministic, reliably correct programs. This is, prima facie, a degenerative and wasteful way to develop software.
Saying boilerplate shouldn’t exist is like saying we shouldn’t need nails or screws if we just designed furniture to be cut perfectly as one piece from the tree. The response is “I mean, sure, that’d be great, not sure how you’ll actually accomplish that though”.
Re: Using Claude Code to modernize a 25-year-old kernel driver
#138pipe dream - now automate Asahi development to M3, M4, and onwards.
M3, to answer the second part why AI won't be of much help, onwards use a massively different GPU architecture that needs to be worked out, again, from scratch. And all of that while there is a substantial number of subsystems remaining on M1, M2 and its variants that aren't supported at all, only partially supported or with serious workarounds, or where the code quality needs massive work to get upstreamed into Linux.
And on top of that, a number of contributors burned out along the way, some from dealing with the ultra-neckbeard faction amongst Linux kernel developers, some from other mental health issues, and Alyssa departed for Intel recently.
Re: Using Claude Code to modernize a 25-year-old kernel driver
#139Earlier quoted context omitted.
When humans are in the loop everything pretty much becomes stochastic as well. What matters more is the error rate and result correctness. I think this shifts the focus towards test cases, measurement, and outcome.
No. This is a fundamentally erroneous analogy. We don't generate code by a stochastic process.