Now that we have seen this can be done, the next question is how much effort it takes to improve it 1%. And then the next 1%. Can we make consistent improvements without spending more and more compute on each step.
Claude’s C Compiler vs. GCC
321–330 of 377 posts
Re: Claude’s C Compiler vs. GCC
#322I think this is a great example of both points of view in the ongoing debate. Pro-LLM coding agents: look! a working compiler built in a few hours by an agent! this is amazing! Anti-LLM coding agents: it's not a working compiler, though. And it doesn't matter how few hours it took, because it doesn't work. It's useless. Pro: Sure, but we can get the agent to fix that. Anti: Can you, though? We've seen that the more c…
> Pro-LLM coding agents: look! a working compiler built in a few hours by an agent! this is amazing!
> Anti-LLM coding agents: it's not a working compiler, though. And it doesn't matter how few hours it took, because it doesn't work. It's useless.
Also, from the Anti-LLM perspective: did the coding agent actually build a working compiler, or just plagiarize prior art? C compilers are certainly part of the LLM's training set.
That's relevant because the implication seems to be: "Look, the agent can successfully develop really advanced software!" when the reality may be that it can plagiarize existing advanced software, and will fall on its face if asked to do anything not already done before.
A lot of propaganda and hype follows the pattern of presenting things in a way to creating misleading implications in the mind of the listener that the facts don't actually support.
Re: Claude’s C Compiler vs. GCC
#323Earlier quoted context omitted.
This to me sounds a lot like the SpaceX conversation: - Ohh look it can [write small function / do a small rocket hop] but it can't [ write a compiler / get to orbit]! - Ohh look it can [write a toy compiler / get to orbit] but it can't [compile linux / be reusable] - Ohh look it can [compile linux / get reusable orbital rocket] but it can't [build a compiler that rivals GCC / turn the rockets around fast enough] - T…
In 1908 the Model T could do 45mph. In 1935 the Auburn 851 S/C Speedster hit 100mph In 1955 the Mercedes-Benz 300 SL Gullwing did 161mph In 2025 the Yangwang U9 Xtreme hit 308mph progress is a decaying exponential - Tsiolkovsky's tyranny
And all these improvements past 1935 have been rendered irrelevant to the daily driver by safety regulations (I'll limit this claim to most of the continental US to avoid straying beyond my experience.)
Re: Claude’s C Compiler vs. GCC
#324Earlier quoted context omitted.
You sound like you'd characterize a thief as polite if he asked you please when taking your wallet.
Ah, I see what you mean - you're making a distinction between someone's speech and someone's acts. Fair enough. In that sense, you would argue that the action of dropping a 13k loc PR is impolite, and I can see that. It's just that in my reading, I did not find his demeanor in the comment thread to be impolite. He was trying to sell his contribution and I think that whatever he wrote was using respectful language.
Dropping an unreviewable 13000 lines PR is disrespectful to the reviewers and their time.
Doing it without any prior discussion with the maintainers is disrespectful to the maintainers and the architecture work they put in.
Trying to "sell" your contribution is disrespectful and implies you know better than the maintainers.
Cockily saying "the AI knows better than you" is disrespectful.
Respectful and polite language does not prevent being disrespectful.
Re: Claude’s C Compiler vs. GCC
#325It's really difficult for me to understand the level of cynicism in the HN comments on this topic, at all. The amount of goalpost-moving and redefining is absolutely absurd. I really get the impression that the majority of the HN comments are just people whining about sour grapes, with very little value added to the discussion. I'd like to see someone disagree with the following: Building a C compiler, targeting thre…
"sour grapes" means nothing in this context
Re: Claude’s C Compiler vs. GCC
#326Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Read the freaking article The freaking article omits several issues in the "compiler". My bet is because they didn't actually challenged the output of the LLM, as it usually happens. If you go to the repository, you'll find fun things, like the fact that it cannot compile a bunch of popular projects, and that it compiles others but the code doesn't pass the tests. It's a bit surprising, specially when they don't ex…
The purpose of this project is not to create a state-of-the-art C compiler on par with projects that represent tens of thousands of developer-years. The goal is to assess the current capabilities of a largely autonomous software-building pipeline: it's not yet limitless, but better than it was. What a shocker. I’ve had my share of build errors while compiling the Linux kernel for custom targets, so I wouldn’t be so s…
> The goal is to assess the current capabilities of a largely autonomous software-building pipeline: it's not yet limitless, but better than it was. What a shocker.
Of course, but we're trying to assess the capabilities by looking at the LLM output as if it were a program written by a person. If someone told me to check out their new C compiler that can build the kernel, I'd assume that other basic things, such as not compiling incorrect programs, are already pretty much covered. But with an LLM we can't assume that. We need to really check what's happening and not trust the agent's word for it.
And the reason why it's important it's because we really need to check whether it's actually "better than it was" or just "doing things incorrectly for longer". Let's say your goal was writing a gcc replacement. Does this autonomous pipeline get you closer? Or does it just get you farther away through the wrong path? Considering that it's full of bugs and incomplete implementations and cannot be changed without things breaking down, I'd say it seems to be the latter.
Re: Claude’s C Compiler vs. GCC
#327Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm reminded, once again, of the recent "vibe coded" OCaml fiasco[1]. The PR author had zero understanding why their entirely LLM-generated contribution was viewed so suspiciously. The article validates a significant point: it is one thing to have passing tests and be able to produce output that resembles correctness - however it's something entirely different for that output to be good and maintainable . [1] https:/…
I just read that whole thread and I think the author made the mistake of submitting a 13k loc PR, but other than that - while he gets downvoted to hell on every comment - he's actually acting professionally and politely. I wouldn't call this a fiasco, it reads to me more that being able to create huge amounts of code - whether the end result works well or not - breaks the traditional model of open source. Small contr…
"Why did you submit these files that are attributed to a completely unrelated person?"
"Beats me"
Do you consider this "professional and polite"? Raise your standards.
Re: Claude’s C Compiler vs. GCC
#328Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you classify as new? Every problem that we solve as developers is a very small deviation from already existing problems. Maybe that’s the point of llms? How many developers do you think are solving truly novel problems? Most like me are CRUD bunnies.
If your problem is a very small deviation from an existing problem, you should be able to take an existing open-source solution and make a very small modification to adapt it to your use case. No need for “vibe-coding” a lower-quality implementation from scratch.
Yeah, it kind of strikes me how a lot of the LLM use cases would actually be better served by existing techniques, like more/better libraries. And if that's not possible, it'd be way better to find the closest match, fork it, and make minimal modifications. At least then you have the benefit of an upstream.
But, sort of like cryptocurrency, the LLM people aren't so much trying to solve actual problems, but rather find an application of their existing technology. Sort of like the proverbial saying: when you're selling hammers, you want convince everyone that their problem as a nail.
Re: Claude’s C Compiler vs. GCC
#329Earlier quoted context omitted.
You didn't even mention that this vibe-coded toy compiler cost $20k in token spend. That's an insane amount of money for what this is.
It seems at least comparable to what you would have to pay a suitably competent developer to code up something similar.
> It seems at least comparable to what you would have to pay a suitably competent developer to code up something similar.
No. You could have someone of fiverr do it for $5. Download gcc, done.
Re: Claude’s C Compiler vs. GCC
#330Earlier quoted context omitted.
So I can keep my job now so I can pay for compute in the future when I'm out of a job. The compute will be used to create my own business to make money.
What makes you think you’ll be able to out-compete the purely-AI-led businesses with your business? What skills will give you an edge in the business that won’t also give you an edge in the job?
> What makes you think you’ll be able to out-compete the purely-AI-led businesses with your business? What skills will give you an edge in the business that won’t also give you an edge in the job?
Or why do you think your small AI-driven business can survive against richer people who can pay for more compute and thus do better than you?
AI may just turn software into a pay to win game.