191–200 of 253 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But what do we do if the closed models are just better?
The agents are separate from the models . Claude Code only allows you to use Claude, but Aider allows you to use any model.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>People think best in 2d. no they don't. some people do. Some people think best in sentences, paragraphs, and sections of structured text. Diagrams mean next to nothing to me. Some graphs, as in representations of actual mathematical graphs, do have meaning though. If a graph is really the best data structure to describe a particular problem space. on edit: added in "representations of" as I worried people might misu…
FWIW, you're likely right here; not everyone is a visual thinker. Still, what both you and GP should be able to agree on, is that code - not pseudocode, simplified code, draft code, but actual code of a program - is one of the worst possible representations to be thinking and working in. It's dumb that we're still stuck with this paradigm; it's a great lead anchor chained to our ankles, preventing us from being able…
It depends on the language. In my experience, well-written Lisp with judicious macros can come close to fitting the way I think of a problem. But some language with tons of boilerplate? No, not at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The thing is, Claude Code only works if you have the plan. It’s impossible to use it on the API, and it makes me wonder if $100/month is truly enough. I use it all day every day now, and I must be consuming a whole lot more than my $100 is worth.
You use it "all day every day", so it makes sense that you would prefer the plan. It's perfectly economical to use it without a plan, if your usage patterns are different. Here's a tool someone else wrote that can help you decide: https://github.com/ryoppippi/ccusage
Not trying to be rude here, but that `last_week.md` is horrible to me. I can't imagine having to read that let alone listen to the computer say it to me. It's so much blah blah and fluff that reads like a bad PR piece. I'd much rather scan through commits of the last week. I've found this generally with AI summaries...usually their writing style is terrible, and I feel like I cannot really trust them to get the facts…
I suppose preferences differ, but really, does anyone _like_ this sort of writing style?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I felt the same thing about the onboarding. Like what future are we trying to build for ourselves here, exactly? The kind where instead of sitting down with a coworker to learn about a codebase, instead we get an ai generated PowerPoint to read alone???? Im so over this timeline.
all of this just reads like the supposed UML zeitgeist that was supposed to transform java and eliminate development 20 years ago if this is all ultimately java but with even more steps, its a sign im definitely getting old. it’s just the same pattern of non technical people deceiving themselves into believing they dont need to be technical to build tech and then ultimately resulting in again 10-20 years of re-learni…
See also 'no-code', 4GLs, 5GLs, etc etc etc. Every decade or so, the marketers find a new thing that will destroy programming forever.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
FWIW, you're likely right here; not everyone is a visual thinker. Still, what both you and GP should be able to agree on, is that code - not pseudocode, simplified code, draft code, but actual code of a program - is one of the worst possible representations to be thinking and working in. It's dumb that we're still stuck with this paradigm; it's a great lead anchor chained to our ankles, preventing us from being able…
> code - not pseudocode, simplified code, draft code, but actual code of a program - is one of the worst possible representations to be thinking and working in. It depends on the language. In my experience, well-written Lisp with judicious macros can come close to fitting the way I think of a problem. But some language with tons of boilerplate? No, not at all.
That's what I mean by Pareto frontier: the choices made by various current-generation languages and coding methodologies (including choices you as a macro author makes, too), are all promoting readability for some tasks, at the expense of readability for other tasks. We're just shifting the difficulty around the time of day, not actually eliminating it.
To break through that and actually make progress, we need to embrace working in different, problem-specific views, instead of on the underlying shared single-source-of-truth plaintext code directly.
Not trying to be rude here, but that `last_week.md` is horrible to me. I can't imagine having to read that let alone listen to the computer say it to me. It's so much blah blah and fluff that reads like a bad PR piece. I'd much rather scan through commits of the last week. I've found this generally with AI summaries...usually their writing style is terrible, and I feel like I cannot really trust them to get the facts…
Even Gemini/gpt4o/etc are all guilty of this. Maybe they'll tighten things up at some point - if I ask an assistant a simple question like "is it possible to put apples into a pie?" what I want is "Yes, it is possible to put apples into a pie. Would you like to know more?"
But not "Yes, absolutely — putting apples into a pie is not only possible, it's classic! Apple pie is one of the most well-known and traditional fruit pies. Typically, sliced apples are mixed with sugar, cinnamon, nutmeg, and sometimes lemon juice or flour, then baked inside a buttery crust. You can use various types of apples depending on the flavor and texture you want (like Granny Smith for tartness or Honeycrisp for sweetness). Would you like a recipe or tips on which apples work best?" (from gpt4).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of all the things I read at uni UML is the thing I've felt the least use for - even when designing new systems. I've had more use for things I never thought I'd need like Rayleigh scattering and processor design.
UML was a buzzword, but a sequence diagram can sometimes replace a few hundred words of dry text. People think best in 2d.
(Also, I'm _fairly_ sure that sequence diagrams didn't originate with UML; it just adopted them.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I felt the same thing about the onboarding. Like what future are we trying to build for ourselves here, exactly? The kind where instead of sitting down with a coworker to learn about a codebase, instead we get an ai generated PowerPoint to read alone???? Im so over this timeline.
all of this just reads like the supposed UML zeitgeist that was supposed to transform java and eliminate development 20 years ago if this is all ultimately java but with even more steps, its a sign im definitely getting old. it’s just the same pattern of non technical people deceiving themselves into believing they dont need to be technical to build tech and then ultimately resulting in again 10-20 years of re-learni…
But I just couldn't handle it when I got into like COMP102 and in the first lecture, the lecturer is all "has anybody not used the internet before?"
I spent my childhood doing the stuff so I just had to bail. I'm sure others would find it rewarding (particularly those that were in my classes because 'a computer job is a good job for money').
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If this was meant to be read, I might've agreed, but: 1) This was supposed to be piped through TTS and listened to in the background, and... 2) People like podcasts . Your typical podcast is much worse than this. It's "blah blah" and "hahaha " and "ooh " and " " and " ", and maybe some of the actual topic mixed in between, and yet for some reason, people love it . I honestly doubt this specific thing would be useful…
What kind of podcast have you listened to, if any? They aren't all Joe Rogan.