Top
Best
New

Posted by samwillis 17 hours ago

Scaling long-running autonomous coding(cursor.com)
230 points | 138 commentspage 2
physicsguy 5 hours ago|
I have been trying Claude Code a lot this week. Two projects:

* A small statically generated Hugo website but with some clever linking/taxonomy stuff. This was a fairly self-contained project that is now 'finished' but wouldn't hvae taken me more than a few days to code up from scratch. * A scientific simulation package, to try and do a clean refresh of an existing one which i can point at for implementation details but which has some technical problems I would like to reduce/remove.

Claude code absolutely smashed the first one - no issues at all. With the second, no matter what I tried, it just made lots of mistakes, even when I just told it to copy the problematic parts and transpose them into the new structure. It basically got to a point where it wasn't correct and it didn't seem to be able to get out of a bit of a 'doom loop' and required manual intervention, no matter how much prompting and hints I gave it.

Bishonen88 4 hours ago||
Similar experience here.

Did sign up for Claude Code myself this week, too, given the $10/month promo. I have experience with AI by using AWS Kiro at work and directly prompting Claude Opus for convos. After just 2 days and ~5-6 vibe coding sessions in total I got a working Life-OS-App created for my needs.

- Clone of Todoist with the features that I actually use/want. Projects, Tags, due dates, quick adding with a todoist like text-aware input (e.g. !p1, Today etc.)

- A fantastical like calendar. Again, 80% of the features I used from Fantastical

- A Habit Tracker

- A Goal Tracker (Quarterly / Yearly)

- A dashboard page showing todays summary with single click edit/complete marking

- User authentication and sharing of various features (e.g. tasks)

- Docker deployment which will eventually run on my NAS

I'm going to add a few more things and cancel quite a few subscriptions. It one-shots all tasks within minutes. It's wild. I can code but didn't bother looking at the code myself, because ... why.

Even though do not earn US Tech money, am tempted to buy the max subscription for a month or two although the price is still hard to swallow.

Claude and vibe coding is wild. If I can clone todoist within a few vibe coding sessions and then implement any additional/new feature I want within minutes instead proposing, praying and then waiting for months, why would I pay $$$...

underdeserver 5 hours ago||
On Twitter people are saying GPT-5.2 is better. That's also what Cursor used in their testing. Maybe try it?
physicsguy 5 hours ago||
I have Web access for ChatGPT through work, but not API access annoyingly.
jphelan 17 hours ago||
This looks like extremely brittle code to my eyes. Look at https://github.com/wilsonzlin/fastrender/blob/main/crates/fa...

What is `FrameState::render_placeholder`?

``` pub fn render_placeholder(&self, frame_id: FrameId) -> Result<FrameBuffer, String> { let (width, height) = self.viewport_css; let len = (width as usize) .checked_mul(height as usize) .and_then(|px| px.checked_mul(4)) .ok_or_else(|| "viewport size overflow".to_string())?;

    if len > MAX_FRAME_BYTES {
      return Err(format!(
        "requested frame buffer too large: {width}x{height} => {len} bytes"
      ));
    }

    // Deterministic per-frame fill color to help catch cross-talk in tests/debugging.
    let id = frame_id.0;
    let url_hash = match self.navigation.as_ref() {
      Some(IframeNavigation::Url(url)) => Self::url_hash(url),
      Some(IframeNavigation::AboutBlank) => Self::url_hash("about:blank"),
      Some(IframeNavigation::Srcdoc { content_hash }) => {
        let folded = (*content_hash as u32) ^ ((*content_hash >> 32) as u32);
        Self::url_hash("about:srcdoc") ^ folded
      }
      None => 0,
    };
    let r = (id as u8) ^ (url_hash as u8);
    let g = ((id >> 8) as u8) ^ ((url_hash >> 8) as u8);
    let b = ((id >> 16) as u8) ^ ((url_hash >> 16) as u8);
    let a = 0xFF;

    let mut rgba8 = vec![0u8; len];
    for px in rgba8.chunks_exact_mut(4) {
      px[0] = r;
      px[1] = g;
      px[2] = b;
      px[3] = a;
    }

    Ok(FrameBuffer {
      width,
      height,
      rgba8,
    })
  }
} ```

What is it doing in these diffs?

https://github.com/wilsonzlin/fastrender/commit/f4a0974594e3...

I'd be really curious to see the amount of work/rework over time, and the token/time cost for each additional actual completed test case.

blibble 17 hours ago||
this is certainly an interesting way to pull out an attribute from a tag: https://github.com/wilsonzlin/fastrender/blob/main/crates/fa...
blamestross 16 hours ago||
I suppose brittle code is fine if you have cursor to update and fix it. Ideal really, keeps you dependent.
xmprt 14 hours ago|||
To be fair, that was always the case when working with external contractors. And if agentic AI companies can capture that market, then that's still a pretty massive opportunity.
kilroy123 2 hours ago||
My test for whether we've created an AGI like AI? Build a Linux kernel from scratch that can actually run a full OS on your computer.

But, if I'm being fair, a full working browser from scratch is just as good.

nl 15 hours ago||
Remember when 3D printers meant the death of factories? Everyone would just print what they wanted at home.

I'm very bullish on LLMs building software, but this doesn't mean the death of software products anymore than 3D printers meant the death of factories.

ben_w 5 hours ago|
Perhaps, but I don't think that's a good analogy, there's too many important differences to say (3d printing : all manufacturing) : (vibe coding : all software).

The hype may be similar, if that's your point then I agree, but the weakness of 3D printing is the range of materials and the conditions needed to work with them (titanium is merely extremely difficult, but no sane government will let the general public buy tetrafluoroethylene as a feedstock), while the weakness of machine learning (even more broadly than LLMs) is the number of examples they require in order to learn stuff.

Havoc 3 hours ago||
> long running

I really dislike this as a measure. A LLM on CPU is also long running cause it’s slow.

I get what it’s meant to convey but time is such a terrible measure of anything if tk/s isn’t static

mk599 17 hours ago||
Define "from scratch" in "building a web browser from scratch". This thing has over 100 crates as dependencies... To implement css layouting, it uses Taffy, a crate used by existing browser implementations...
qingcharles 10 hours ago||
And it's not necessarily a bad move to use all those dependencies, but you're right it makes the claim shady.

I can create a web browser in under a minute in Copilot if I ask it to build a WinForms project that embeds the WebView2 "Edge" component and just adds an address bar and a back button.

rvz 15 hours ago||
When I see hundreds of crates being used in a project, I have to just scratch my head and ask: What the f___?

If one vulnerability exists in those crates well, thats that.

torginus 8 hours ago||
I'm kinda surprised how negative and skeptical anyone is here.

It kinda blows my mind that this is possible, to build a browser engine that approximates a somewhat working website renderer.

Even if we take the most pessimistic interpretation of events ( heavy human steering, relies on existing libraries, sloppy code quality at places, not all versions compile etc)

ben_w 6 hours ago|
I'm not too surprised, the way I read a lot of (not all!*) the negative comments is ~"I'm imagining having to work with this code, I'd hate it". Even though I'm fairly impressed with the work LLMs do, this has also been my experience of them… albeit with a vibe-coding** sample size of 1, done over a few days with some spare credit.

The positive views are mostly from people who point out that what matters in the end is what the code does, not what it looks like, e.g. users don't see the code, nor do they care about the code, and that even for businesses who do care, LLMs may be the ones who have to pay down any technical debt that builds up.

* Anyone in a field where mistakes are expensive. In one project, I asked the LLM to code-review itself and it found security vulnerabilities in its own solutions. It's probably still got more I don't know about.

** In the original sense of just letting the LLM do whatever it wanted in response to the prompt, never reading or code reviewing the result myself until the end.

satvikpendem 6 hours ago||
The problem I've had with vibe coding is akin the adage of the first 90% of the code taking 90% of the time, and the last 10% taking the other 90% of the time. The LLM can get you to 90% initially but it hits a wall unless you the user know what it's doing and outputting, but that is very difficult when you're vibe coding by its very definition, meaning that you're not looking at the code at all. And then you have to read thousands of lines of code which you don't understand that it's entirely easier to stop and hand code a new version yourself, which is precisely what I've done with some of my projects.
throwaway63467 7 hours ago||
I‘m running opus 4.5 which is arguably their best model and while it’s really good for a lot of work it always introduces subtle errors or inconsistencies when left unsupervised as prompts are never good enough to remove all ambiguity for complex asks, so I can’t imagine what it will do to a code base when left alone with it for days or weeks.
navinsylvester 12 hours ago||
all these focus on long running agents without focussing on core restructure is baffling. the immediate need is to break down complex tasks into smaller ones and single shot them with some amount of parallelism. imo - we need an opinionated system but with human in the middle and then think about dreamy next steps. we need to focus on groundedness first instead of worrying about agent conjuring something from thin air. the decision to leap frog into automated long running agents is quite baffling.

boys are trying to single shot a browser when a moderate complex task can derail a repo. there’s no good amount of info which might be deliberate but from what i can pick, their value add was “distributed computing and organisational design” but that too they simplified. i agree that simplicity is always the first option but flat filesystem structure without standards will not work. period.

vivekv 11 hours ago|
I would agree with this. There are definite challenges in grounded specifications today and the tendency for an LLM to go in tangents that is still a struggle that we all deal with every day.
tired_and_awake 16 hours ago|
The moment all code is interacted with through agents I cease to care about code quality. The only thing that matters is the quality of the product, cost of maintenance etc. exactly the thing we measure software development orgs against. It could be handy to have these projects deployed to demonstrate their utility and efficacy? Looking at PRs of agents feels a wrong headed, like who cares if agents code is hard to read if agents are managing the code base?
qingcharles 10 hours ago||
We don't read the binary output of our C compilers because we trust it to be correct almost every time. ("It's a compiler bug" is more of a joke than a real issue)

If AI could reach the point where we actually trusted the output, then we might stop checking it.

LiamPowell 5 hours ago|||
> "It's a compiler bug" is more of a joke than a real issue

It's a very real issue, people just seem to assume their code is wrong rather than the compiler. I've personally reported 12 GCC bugs over the last 2 years and there's 1239 open wrong-code bugs currently.

Here's an example of a simple one in the C frontend that has existed since GCC 4.7: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105180

ares623 10 hours ago|||
“If” doing a lot of work here
AlexCoventry 14 hours ago|||
You should at least read the tests, to make sure they express your intent. Personally, I'm not going to take responsibility for a piece of code unless I've read every line of it and thought hard about whether it does what I think it does.

AI coding agents are still a huge force-multiplier if you take this approach, though.

visarga 16 hours ago|||
> Looking at PRs of agents feels a wrong headed

It would be walking the motorcycle.

icedchai 16 hours ago|||
This is how we wound up with non-technical "engineering managers." Looks good to me.
tired_and_awake 15 hours ago||
I think this misses the point, see the other comments. Fully scaled agentic coding replaces managers too :) cause for celebration all around
satvikpendem 6 hours ago|||
No, it becomes only managers, because they are the ones who dictate the business needs (because otherwise, what is the software the agents are making even doing without such goals), and now even worse with non technical ones.
icedchai 13 hours ago|||
I don't believe that. If you go fully agentic and you don't understand the output, you become the manager. You're in no better position than the pointy-haired boss from Dilbert.
flyinglizard 15 hours ago||
You could look at agents as meta-compilers, the problem is that unlike real compilers they aren't verified in any way (neither formally or informally), in fact you never know which particular agent you're running against when you're asking for something; and unlike compilers, you don't just throw away everything and start afresh on each run. I don't think you could test a reasonably complex system to a degree where it really wouldn't matter what runs underneath, and as you're going to (probably) use other agents to write THOSE tests, what makes you certain they offer real coverage? It's turtles all the way down.
tired_and_awake 15 hours ago||
Completely agree and great points. The conclusion of "agents are writing the tests" etc is where I'm at as well. More over the code quality itself is also an agentic problem, as is compile time, reliability, portability... Turtles all the way down as you say.

All code interactions all happen through agents.

I suppose the question is if the agents only produce Swiss cheese solutions at scale and there's no way to fill in those gaps (at scale). Then yeah fully agentic coding is probably a pipe dream.

On the other hand if you can stand up a code generation machine where it's watts + Gpus + time => software products. Then well... It's only a matter of time until app stores entirely disappear or get really weird. It's hard to fathom the change that's coming to our profession in this world.

More comments...