rudedogg

No argument that it works, it definitely does. I just think the LLMs have a hard time with tweaks/modifications of any kind, more so than what I see even in a custom GUI toolkit I’ve built that it has zero training data on.

Asking for simple changes to SwiftUI interfaces I’ve one-shot is always a frustrating experience for me

Logically this makes sense, but in practice it doesn’t, at least in my experience with SwiftUI. The LLM isn’t any better about generating/understanding it.

While the DSL is more formal than natural language, it’s not what we’re communicating to the LLM with, so it’s advantages are washed away. And typical code is more strict/rigorous than DSLs so I think that’s why I see worse results, because a typical languages compiler “catches” more mistakes, versus a DSL that’s easy to write but has lots of implicitness.

I’ve had the same journey experimenting with levels if abstraction too. Going lower, and exposing the LLM to the “full-stack” works much better than trying to build up abstractions it can’t see into without extra steps.

I don’t want to be too much of a hater, but these types of panacea/architecture posts are usually written by people who don’t work in the field, lack pressure or constraints, and get paid to goof around in castles of the mind. I would simply skip over it and hold my comments/opinions to myself, but they tend to have an outsized influence on software engineering practices.

He says he writes slop code and doesn’t provide a single example or prove that statement.

You can look at the bun codebase. Moving fast has its drawbacks, and bun moved very fast. It’s not what I’d call idiomatic or exemplary Zig.

I think this is what Andrew was highlighting with “beginner energy”. Not knowing you shouldn’t rewrite a toolchain and take on an entire ecosystem can be a positive. I think this is pretty common in business, where someone/something isn’t “great” but wins because they didn’t know any better and went headfirst into something experts avoided because they understand the challenges and what “doing it right” entails.

Any thoughts on the latest price fixing allegations?: https://en.sedaily.com/international/2026/06/29/samsung-sk-h...

I tried CachyOS and Niri this weekend, and was pleasantly surprised hibernate/suspend actually worked with no customizations on my Desktop.

I’ve tried like 5 other distros and usually when it goes into sleep/hibernate the monitor never wakes up so I have to force shutdown using the power button.

I’m going to install this on an older machine and see how it goes. So far it’s been great!

You talk about Anthropic giving the government 'enough rope' and getting 'owned', which seems like a tacit acknowledgement that the government does not give a shit about whatever the surface-level justification for this ban is.

I think you’re whitewashing Dario’s abhorrent behavior, and you think I’m whitewashing the government’s.

Unfortunately there’s no law against being a piece of shit and trying to pull the ladder up behind you, lobby for locking out your competitors under the guise of safety, etc..

So I have to settle for him getting swallowed by the morons he was influencing.

And if you think his concerns over safety were genuine I have a bridge to sell you.

Not sure why you're getting downvoted, or why the narrative here is all about this being payback for the Department of Whatever-the-fuck thing.

Dario has been spouting how his models are too dangerous, thinking he was playing 3D chess and got owned from my perspective. And there's the possiblility of insider plays by the current administration w/ OpenAI or SpaceX.

But Dario was running his own propaganda machine and gave them enough rope to do this.

Maybe just focusing on building solid models and running a business was the play, not trying for regulatory capture and being anti-competitive.

organizations are willing to tolerate paying $1500/month/engineer

One organization, that is a software company

which seems to be roughly inline with "normal" consumption for most full-time engineers

My peers are using $20/mo plans, only a handful are using more than $100/mo in tokens. We haven’t had any limits imposed yet.

That seems way off to me.

I skimmed the article, but couldn’t spot any details on their estimates. They mention 70b+ params as being large in several places. But we’ve had several 100b+ param models that trail Sonnet.

If Google is actually getting cheaper inference than everyone else with their TPUs, this smells like trouble to me. Maybe serving LLMs at a profit is proving difficult.

Or maybe they think because their benchmarks are good they can ramp up the prices. Seems like they don’t have the market share to justify a move like that yet to me.

The “Apps” app is so bad on macOS too (seems built off of Spotlight?). I’ll type the exact app name and it’ll suggest the one on my phone, an installer in Downloads, etc..

No one dog-fooded that thing.

Zig has these modern language features too fwiw.

I think the goal was to do a massive rewrite for Anthropic (they acquired bun) and show that rewriting projects from lang -> lang with Claude can reduce security vulnerabilities to help with the hype for an IPO.

I don’t use/know Rust so I can’t comment on the quality, but there was a public security review that found issues with the new Rust code: https://x.com/SwivalAgent/status/2054468328119279923

This is an interesting experiment but I’m skeptical of any claims of success by Jarred/Anthropic due to the incentive to hype agents. There’s probably a trillion dollars at stake with the IPO. And Anthropic seems to be developing this part of their business with Mythos and the super review features.

But I’d like to see the same experiment done on a project without so much relying on the story being success.

The Fed reports

Have you happened to purchase anything in the past 12 months, and looked at the Fed's inflation numbers?

1) Higher level code is easier for LLMs to review and iterate upon. The more the intent is clear from the code, the easier it is for humans and LLMs to work with.

The counter-argument, and one that matches my experience is working at a lower level is actually beneficial for LLMs since they can see the whole picture and don’t have to guess at abstractions.

The abstractions are the veil that make the theft slightly less obvious

it requires a hands-on approach and actually understanding what's being built.

I think this is true regardless of what language you’re using.

I’ve built a lot in Zig and there’s no difference between vibing stuff in it versus TypeScript/React. Claude can “one-shot” them both, and will mimic existing code or grep the standard library to figure everything out.

I’ve been vibe-ish coding a GUI Toolkit in Zig w/ SDL3 and Vulkan for a few months now.

It has lots of features, but I posted a demo of some fun with buttons here: https://x.com/rudedoggtweets/status/2043531378181161357

I think I’m building up an agentic IDE, just haven’t committed yet, but probably will this month.

One cool new thing I’m trying is running models directly w/ Vulkan. I’m about halfway there with my first model, but it’s going better/easier than I anticipated and I’m hoping I can make something very specialized and fast.

This is fun, FYI you don’t have to sign in/up with a Google account. I hesitated downloading it for that reason.

Any serious LLM work isn't going to use that.

That’s my point.

One would expect the platform owner (especially one where they own both the hardware AND software) to provide a reasonable / easy path to using LLMs if they are going to provide a framework for doing so. But Apple can’t because of how slow they ship updates

The application development APIs, ie: https://developer.apple.com/documentation/technologyoverview...

Their rule of only releasing major software updates once a year in June is holding them back IMO. Their local LLM apis were dated before macOS/iOS 26 was even released. Just because something worked 20 years ago doesn’t mean it works today, but I’m sure it’s hard to argue against a historically successful strategy internally.

You don't have to use all of them!

You sure pay for the language complexity in high compile times though. Swift is slow, like really slow. I’ve been with it since like v1.2, and its been getting progressively worse for a while IMO. Complex language features (Lets do a borrow checker! Lets do embedded!) and half of the shit isn’t being used internally as far as I can tell

And if Google Maps charged per tile viewed, so the user pays the same amount regardless of which maps client they used, would your opinion hold?

I get that it’s a ToS violation, but I’m saying it shouldn’t be. They’re trying to make the harness the moat because they all have no moat.

My point is that model providers are just a compute service, and should have no say in what sends the data, or displays the data. Especially when they only bill based on the quantity of data.

They are basically a utility.

This is more like if Google took action against Thunderbird and open-source email clients

And on top of it, if you develop for native macOS, There’s no official tooling for visual verification. It’s like 95% of development is web and LLM providers care only about that.

I think this is built in to the latest Xcode IIRC

I think the real divide is over quality and standards.

We all have different thresholds for what is acceptable, and our roles as engineers typically reflect that preference. I can grind on a single piece of code for hours, iterating over and over until I like the way it works, the parameter names, etc.

Other people do not see the value in that whatsoever, and something that works is good enough. We both are valuable in different ways.

Also, theres the pace of advancement of the models. Many people formed their opinions last year, and the landscape has changed a lot. There’s also some effort requires in honing your skill using them. The “default” output is average quality, but with some coaxing higher quality output is easily attained.

I’m happy people are skeptical though, there are a lot of things that do require deep thought, connecting ideas in new ways, etc., and LLMs aren’t good at that in my experience.

Thanks for mentioning, but I did update it to High Effort when I got the notification

I've been thinking this too. I frequently do deep research on some systems programming technique, ask it to generate a .md for it, and then I use that in later sessions with Claude Code "look at the research I collected in {*-research}.md and help me explore ways to apply it to {thing}".

At the research step it frequently (always?) uses memory to direct/scope the research to what I typically work on, but I think that kind of pigeon holes the model and what it explores. And the memory doesn't quite capture all the areas I'm interested in, or want to directly apply the research to.

And regarding the crap in memories, I found the same. Mine at work mentioned I'm an expert at a business domain I have almost zero experience with.

I feel like the companies building this stuff accept a lot of "slop" in their approach, and just can't see past building things by slopping stuff into prompts. I wish they'd explore more rigid approaches. Yes, I understand "the bitter lesson" but it seems obvious to me some traditional approaches would yield better results for the foreseeable future. Less magic (which is just running things through the cheapest model they have and dumping it in every chat). It seems like poison.

Related: https://vercel.com/blog/agents-md-outperforms-skills-in-our-...

Also, agent skills are usually pure slop. If you look through https://skills.sh on a framework/topic you're knowledgeable in you'll be a bit disheartened. This stuff was pioneered by people who move fast, but I think it's now time to try and push for quality and care in the approach since these have gotten good enough to contribute to more than prototype work.

It's not much but I was planning to cancel my Anthropic subscription to try Codex over the weekend, but I'll skip that. I don't want to support a company with someone like this at the top. Massive donations to the administration, sneaky backdoor deals. No thanks, fuck you.