Top
Best
New

Posted by ltratt 13 hours ago

We should be more ambitious with the software we build(danluu.com)
437 points | 376 commentspage 4
ChrisMarshallNY 10 hours ago|
Speaking only for myself, I have found that using an LLM has allowed me to add significant utility to the apps that I ship.

I am not thrilled with all the coding decisions that it makes. I would definitely do stuff differently, but I have learned not to pop the hood and mess with the engine, myself. If I really don't like something, I ask the LLM to change it.

It's worked for me, but YMMV. I'm just one guy, shipping relatively small apps.

jacquesm 10 hours ago||
What about the lack of control?

Do you still feel responsible for what you ship?

What about the copyright on your code?

Would you be ok with someone reverse engineering what you ship and then releasing their own version of the app?

ChrisMarshallNY 10 hours ago||
> What about the lack of control?

I don't use LLMs the way that most folks do. I think a lot of people would laugh at the way I do it, but it's allowed me to retain a significant amount of control in the work, and I relinquish it very, very slowly. Everything that I've ever let go of has claw marks all over it. I have issues.

> Do you still feel responsible for what you ship?

Absolutely. If it has my chop, it's my ass on the line; no one else's. It's the way I was trained, and it's the way I worked; my entire career. I was a manager, for much of that career, and I got very used to standing behind the work of people smarter and more capable than I am, and refusing to condone bad work.

It doesn't matter how the stuff I ship gets there. It may be my own code, it may be a contracted pro, it may be an unpaid intern, it may be an LLM, it may be a howler monkey, banging on a typewriter.

If I sign off on it, and ship it, it's mine, and it's my responsibility to refuse to ship substandard crap (and I have seen a lot of substandard crap done by meat engines).

But that kind of attitude is considered "quaint," these days, and that's from long before LLMs were a broken rubber on the drug store shelf.

> Would you be ok with someone reverse engineering what you ship and then releasing their own version of the app?

Absolutely no problem. If they can do better, then more power to them, and I'll step out of the way. Might want to take a gander at the kind of stuff I write, and who I write it for. It's no secret.

jacquesm 9 hours ago||
I think we're approaching this in very much the same way.

I read every line and make sure it does exactly what I want it to do unless it is external plumbing, then I don't care.

msla 10 hours ago||
[flagged]
layerv-ai 5 hours ago||
As we've been saying: because you can do so much more with software now, and there is no moat, the top 5% of software will compete amongst itself on UX + raw quality. If Ant/OAI can copy your product in <1 week, then you need to constantly stay innovating, listening to customers, and really really pushing the bar on quality to keep your market share.

There is so much software to still be built!

d-ramdass 8 hours ago||
It’s never been better to hill climb on problems especially deep systems problems. If you have the expertise and desire to carefully design goals, identify salient metrics, and recursively improve with rigor, modern AI can provide a massively powerful toolkit.
wccrawford 11 hours ago||
I think we should focus on writing the existing software better before being more ambitious. The absolute wave of "ai slop" is from people who are "more ambitious" now. Why do we want more of that?

I'm being more ambitious in that I'm working on projects that I had sidelined for literal decades because I didn't have time for them. But I'm writing the same things, just faster. And probably better, rather than just what I'd have done before.

And I'm being slightly more ambitious in that I'm using languages I haven't used before, like Rust.

But when I hear that a non-programmer wrote a new ai-assisted (vibe or not) thing, I walk away and wait for the it to mature, be surpassed, or find out it's an absolute shitshow. An unsurprising number of them were shitshows and it came out fairly quickly after I decided to wait and see.

__MatrixMan__ 10 hours ago|
Do we particularly like the existing software though? So much of it is just about making money, because until recently custom software cost too much money to make without investors, and what do investors want? returns.

Now that custom software is cheap (if you can tolerate a bit of slop here and there), it seems like there's an opportunity to do some important things that weren't being done before because they're not profitable--and you can't get at those things by incrementally improving the old stuff, you need ambition.

vishvananda 10 hours ago||
I’ve been coming around to the same conclusion. We are really just scratching the surface of what we can do with these new tool1. The windmill I have been tilting at is creating a c++ compiler[1] and the most recent version is able to compile about 7x faster than gcc[2]. I don’t know that this is super-useful because people aren’t writing much in c++ these days, but as the article mentions, faster rust compilation would accelerate agentic coding considerably. I’ve just started tackling rust and I don’t have a confirmed result yet but early testing makes me think I can find a 4x+ speed up here.

[1]: https://github.com/vishvananda/cppgm-extended

[2]: caveats here include only c++11, only x86, and potential for bugs, but 7x is pretty darn significant even with caveats

Vaushite 8 hours ago|
is it faster because it doesn't have much optimization? Most of the slowness of C++ compilers is an extensive search for optimisation opportunities.
vishvananda 7 hours ago|||
For reference I blogged about the previous version here which was ahead of gcc in compile time and produced 50% slower compiled code here: https://medium.com/@vishvananda/agentic-c-compiler-redux-5d1... I haven’t updated with the most recent results but the current v5 reference has the perf stated above
vishvananda 7 hours ago|||
It compiles about 7x faster both at -O0 and -O3. My optimization is not quite on par but it is really close. Compiled code is about 5% slower.
giovannibonetti 7 hours ago||
> Funnily enough, for coding, on many tasks, if you actually use one of their SOTA models and compare it to what you get from Anthropic, the actual speedup isn't all that large because of time spent on things like compiling Rust.

That's why I bet that fast compilers are the future. See this other thread that reached the front page a few hours ago about the Roc language [1]

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50218195

superambitiousr 4 hours ago||
AI has made me way more ambitious. I'm building reai.no, an accounting system, POS system, e-commerce system, WMS, OMS, email marketing and much more in one app. It has replaced over 10 systems/apps for some customers.

Only for Norwegian businesses as the accounting is core.

I think these kind of applications that replaces 10 different systems will be much more important than the "we vibecoded an internal tool that does exactly what we need"

Uristqwerty 9 hours ago||
Tangential thought when reading the code formatting bit in the examples appendix: Inject a comment with fmt-start-{unique-token} and a corresponding -end-, and you could get away with a much simpler parser and hopefully far fewer edge cases, assuming it doesn't influence the lines in between. It's a bit roundabout, but the pressure of 'figuring out AST position the direct way'd be too fiddly to do by hand' inspires 'so make an easy-to-spot landmark that'll remain in place' when you can't delegate all the details to an AI model.
ChaseRensberger 11 hours ago||
I feel like I make this point a lot at work. We are not running out of problems. Let’s move the goalposts.
surrTurr 8 hours ago|
yeah, the number of problems is infinite
mgaunard 3 hours ago|
So by "more ambitious", people really mean "waste more tokens"?
More comments...