Top
Best
New

Posted by adamnemecek 3 days ago

Woxi: Wolfram Mathematica Reimplementation in Rust(github.com)
209 points | 92 commentspage 2
esafak 7 hours ago||
I wonder if it would make a good Zeppelin interpreter. https://zeppelin.apache.org/
adius 7 hours ago|
Oh cool, haven't heard of this before. Could be a good fit - I'll have to try it out some day!
fnord77 7 hours ago||
vibe coded?
adius 7 hours ago|
Such a massive undertaking would be almost impossible without AI agents, so yeah, they help me. But with around 5000 tests, they are actually helping to improve the software quality!
throawayonthe 7 hours ago|||
are all the tests hand written or are some agent-contributed? curious
mountainriver 7 hours ago||
What’s the difference if you review the code getting merged?
i_cannot_hack 6 hours ago|||
Reviewing the correctness of code is a lot harder than writing correct code, in my experience. Especially when the code given looks correct on an initial glance, and leads you into faulty assumptions you would not have made otherwise.

I'm not claiming AI-written and human-reviewed code is necessarily bad, just that the claim that reviewing code is equivalent to writing it yourself does not match my experience at all.

tempest_ 6 hours ago||
Plus if you look at the commit cadence there is a lot of commits like 5-10 minutes a part in places that add new functionality (which I realize doesn't mean they were "written" in that time)

I find people do argue a lot about "if it is reviewed it is the same" which might be easy when you start but I think the allure of just glancing going "it makes sense" and hammering on is super high and hard to resist.

We are still early into the use of these tools so perhaps best practices will need to be adjusted with these tools in mind. At the moment it seems to be a bit of a crap shoot to me.

IshKebab 4 hours ago||||
The difference is we can't tell if you reviewed the code.
layer8 1 hour ago||
To be fair, we also couldn’t tell for sure if they hand-wrote the code.
IshKebab 1 hour ago||
If they hand wrote the code we know they at least looked at it once.
throawayonthe 6 hours ago|||
i mean idk that's sorta like asking what's the difference of having tests if you review the code getting merged
tock 7 hours ago|||
Did you actually review 313,397 LOC written by claude? And you wrote the tests? That's honestly very impressive if yes.
aaron695 8 hours ago||
[dead]
downboots 8 hours ago|
Great! Math tools for everyone.

what's stopping some Mathematica employee from taking the source code and having an agent port it. Or even reconstruction from the manual. Who owns an algorithm?

Will everything get copied eventually?

adius 7 hours ago||
According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotus_Development_Corp._v._Bor...., a software clone does not infringe software copyright. So yeah, I'd guess sooner or later everything is going be cloned …
MengerSponge 7 hours ago||
> what's stopping some employee from something like Mathematica from taking the source code and having an agent port it to open source

Laws against theft. Also the same reason employees don't release the code on pastebin or something.

> Who owns an algorithm?

The org or person who was granted the software patent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent

> Will everything get copied eventually?

If we're lucky. More likely everything bitrots as technical capabilities are lost. Slowly at first, then quickly.

downboots 7 hours ago|||
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_number
Y_Y 6 hours ago|||
Which patent are you referring to?
shwaj 5 hours ago||
Any patent. The question was who owns a (arbitrary) algorithm. The elaborated answer is that nobody “owns” an algorithm (i.e. has intellectual property rights to it) without a patent: in USA and many other jurisdictions, patents are the IP tool relating to algorithms.