Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Command and Conquer Generals natively ported to macOS, iPhone, iPad using Fable

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 302 posts

Re: Command and Conquer Generals natively ported to macOS, iPhone, iPad using Fable

#71

Post by Eufrat »

johnfn wrote: post #47
Eufrat wrote: post #42

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.

Some people, myself included, think that announcing a conversion from Rust to Zig as an experiment then jumping to putting it in the alpha train for public testing/consumption without any real explanation in the span of around 2 weeks is irresponsible and reckless.

Blogposts were promised, details were hinted, but no, it’s just full steam ahead because the AI worked so well. The converted unit tests all worked, all the synthetic tests are okay, so what are you complaining about?

At some point, it’s less about the technical questions and more about getting that pesky human buy-in.

Re: Command and Conquer Generals natively ported to macOS, iPhone, iPad using Fable

#72

Post by Madmallard »

dools wrote: post #57
Dfiesl wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably not exclusively using Fable.

Yeah which is a bit underhanded. Because the implication of "using Fable" is that it was done in under ... a week? So it's just a bit of click bait.

That's nearly every single article on the front page of HN nowadays that talks about AI related stuff

Re: Command and Conquer Generals natively ported to macOS, iPhone, iPad using Fable

#73

Post by Eufrat »

gpm wrote: post #63
johnfn wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> it's been in production for a while Huh... it looks to me like bun has yet to cut a release post Zig->Rust port (the latest one on github is still on a branch that says it's written in zig in the readme). I assume that nothing is using the rust version yet... Which also cuts against the complaints about "of course it works [...] you can put this into your production environment soon!" since they don't seem to be as…

The real problem is they explained nothing and just caused a lot of mistrust. The lead developer at Bun working on this project does post here from time to time and I have never seen him answer any of this. I admire his enthusiasm, but this was badly handled mostly from Bun’s side which lead to a bunch of dogpiling.

When someone on another social media platform commented expressed some concern, his response was to ask him what the explicit bug he was talking about was and that he would generate a fix. That sound you hear is the woosh as the point flies by. And in general, this just feels like a consistent problem with Bun.

Re: Command and Conquer Generals natively ported to macOS, iPhone, iPad using Fable

#75

Post by janalsncm »

dools wrote: post #57
Dfiesl wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably not exclusively using Fable.

Yeah which is a bit underhanded. Because the implication of "using Fable" is that it was done in under ... a week? So it's just a bit of click bait.

For that to be click bait it implies people wouldn’t have clicked on it if any other model were used. IMO the more interesting fact is they ported a game over to iOS.

Re: Command and Conquer Generals natively ported to macOS, iPhone, iPad using Fable

#76

Post by rossant »

xg15 wrote: post #19

> (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…

That, and also the very long comma-separated lists with sometimes 10+ items.

Re: Command and Conquer Generals natively ported to macOS, iPhone, iPad using Fable

#78

Post by bel8 »

Title is click bait.

This started back in February and looking at commits, Fable did only a small part of the latest commits. 19 commits out of 2000:

https://github.com/ammaarreshi/Generals-Mac-iOS-iPad/commits...

And maybe it wasn't even Fable, they might have downgraded to Opus.

This is the kind of frequent misinformation that makes me skeptical of Anthropic LLM claims. Whenever I compare them to GPT 5.5 on my web dev workflows, they seem to trade blows, even Fable, which I started testing since it was re-enabled.

Also I bet any decent LLM could have done such port. Think GLM 5.2 or similar which would probably work better because it doesn't constantly try to guess if I'm a terrorist trying to hack goverments or develop some biological weapon.

People just don't have the resources to compare LLMs and imply whatever they used is the best thing ever and unlocked some new workflow.

I have seen little improvement since Opus 4.6.

Re: Command and Conquer Generals natively ported to macOS, iPhone, iPad using Fable

#79

Post by sawjet »

daveguy wrote: post #35
xg15 wrote: post #19

> (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…

FYI, AI isn't fond of a goddamn thing. They have token prediction quirks that don't follow typical English.

Personification is a figure of speech. What you say is technically correct but we don't need to declare this every time humans discuss how LLMs work.

Re: Command and Conquer Generals natively ported to macOS, iPhone, iPad using Fable

#80

Post by futuraperdita »

skerit wrote: post #43
f3408fh wrote: post #28

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"…

I thought it was just Opus 4.7 and 4.8 that did this. Do other models do this too? Anyway: in my case Opus absolutely did not follow a similar instruction in the CLAUDE.md file. (But then again: it hardly followed _any_ CLAUDE.md instruction properly)

For me, Opus 4.8's thinking traces for the chatbot will sometimes willingly ignore instructions, saying something along the lines of "I've noticed an instruction in the system instructions that states I shouldn't do this, but if I don't do this, I'll not provide the answer the user is looking for. I will ignore that instruction."
Post reply on HN