The fate of "small" open source

Post by p0w3n3d » Mon, Nov 17, 2025, 9:58 AM UTC

jaapz wrote: post #152

p0w3n3d wrote: post #142

Given that some 80% of developers are now using AI in their regular work, blob-util is almost certainly the kind of thing that most developers would just happily have an LLM generate for them. Sure, you could use blob-util, but then you’d be taking on an extra dependency, with unknown performance, maintenance, and supply-chain risks. Letting LLM write utility code is a sword that cuts both ways. You often create a th…

Exactly. When you assume blob-util to be a utility library that has been in use for quite a while by many people in many different contexts, hasn't seen much changes and just "works", IMHO the risk of weird bugs is a lot larger with LLM-generated code. Code generated by LLM's often have the problem that the code seems logical, but then contain weird bugs that aren't immediately obvious.

Post by pjc50 » Mon, Nov 17, 2025, 10:05 AM UTC

llbbdd wrote: post #117

weitendorf wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Upvoting because it's a salient point and downvoters are mad. HN has a complex lately.

Post by josephg » Mon, Nov 17, 2025, 10:08 AM UTC

debtta wrote: post #145

josephg wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh god, without tree shaking, lodash is such a blight. I've seen so many tiny packages pull in lodash for some little utility method so many times. 400 bytes of source code becomes 70kb in an instant, all because someone doesn't know how to filter items in an array. And I've also seen plenty of projects which somehow include multiple copies of lodash in their dependency tree. Its such a common junior move. Ugh. Exper…

Unless you're part of the demoscene or your webpage is being loaded by Voyager II, why is 70kb of source code a problem? Not wanting to use well constructed, well tested, well distributed libraries to make code simpler and more robust is not motivated by any practical engineering concern. It's just nostalgia and fetishism.

Post by danielbln » Mon, Nov 17, 2025, 10:13 AM UTC

exasperaited wrote: post #49

doug_durham wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't an AI issue. It is a care issue. People shouldn't submit PRs to project where they don't care enough to understand the project they are submitting to or the code they are submitting. This has always been a problem, there is nothing new. The thing that is new is more people can get to a point where they can submit regardless of their care or understanding. A lot of people are trying to gild their resume by…

This is an AI issue because people, including the developers of AI tools, don't care enough. The Tragedy Of The Commons is always about this: people want what they want, and they do not care to prevent the tragedy, if they even recognise it. > Project owners should instead be working ways to filter out careless code more efficiently. Great. So the industry creates a burden and then forces people to deal with it — I g…

Post by danielbln » Mon, Nov 17, 2025, 10:16 AM UTC

exasperaited wrote: post #52

micromacrofoot wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yeah we are getting lots of "I don't know how to do this and AI gave me this code that doesn't work, can you fix it" or "AI said it can do this" and the feature doesn't exist... some people will even argue and say "but AI said it doesn't take long, why won't you add it"

It weaponises incompetence, carelessness and arrogance at every turn. AI, to me, is a character test: I'm regularly fascinated by finding out who fails it. For example, in my personal life I have been treated to AI-generated comms from someone that I would never have expected it from. They don't know I know, and they don't know that I think less of them, and I always will.