Top
Best
New

Posted by ltratt 15 hours ago

We should be more ambitious with the software we build(danluu.com)
479 points | 417 commentspage 6
rr808 11 hours ago|
I really liked this talk about how the premise of "software is eating the world" is incorrect. I think AI coding tools proves the point that software part is easy, its the hardware that is the important part. We can't really be more ambitious with software when ultimate pure software is limited in what is possible.

Bryan Cantrill: Andreessen’s Folly - The False Dichotomy of Software and Hardware https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0JjG0Qfwi8

rerdavies 9 hours ago||
If only you invested a tiny fraction of the effort it took to write this to make it easier for us to read. It's a serious discourtesy.

```

.reading-container {

  /\* Automatically caps the container at 65 characters on desktop, 

     but scales to 100% minus a 2rem padding buffer on mobile devices \*/

  width: min(65ch, 100% - 2rem);

  margin-inline: auto;
} ```
orangea 8 hours ago|
Consider using "reader view" / "reading mode"
rerdavies 4 hours ago||
That does indeed make the page readable. Thanks for the tip.

Out of curiosity, what exactly is the constituency that's being address by not using css to format page content at all? It seems like a deliberate attempt to not use CSS at all; but then it does. Just not for actually formatting the page. Is this virtue signaling of some kind? And if so, what virtue is it signalling? Most curious.

Amekedl 4 hours ago||
Would love to see the author actually go deeper into details: what did they eval with models implementing zstd?

Many such cases are benign in the sense they in practice are simply the model basically "git clone"-ing the code they need to complete the implementation.

The amount of recall and synthetic data slop makes it imho very hard to actually get the models to really do something more novel (where they fall apart more often)

superkuh 5 hours ago||
You know what would be really ambitious? Software that exists in a stable form without breaking for more than 15 years. Truly ambitious would be a stable, non-changing common linux base (like how Nintendo NES emulation target is stable) of packages that just gets supported for decades.

Perhaps that's too ambitious. But it would be of incredible utility not having to re-make the same things over and over in pepertuity with ever more abstraction layers. So much work on computer is just the constant churn and future shock of libraries adding new features which require updates which break other things. I'm tired of building castles on sand.

Vaushite 11 hours ago||
Behind the link "slow software that the creator is claiming is fast" is the following text:

"funnily enough, I have some faith in some of the projects that people are the most skeptical of, e.g., every time I see pgrust somewhere, there are a lot of skeptical comments. But, without having looked into the details of what he's optimizing, I would trust that they're not doing something shady with their benchmarks because Michael Malis started the project (and is still involved)"

This aged like milk. pgrust was caught cheating on all benchmarks this week.

malisper 11 hours ago||
> This aged like milk. pgrust was caught cheating on all benchmarks this week.

Can you back this up? Our code is open source here[0]. You're free to audit it and benchmark it as much as you want. You'll find it's just as fast as we claim it is

[0] https://github.com/malisper/pgrust

what 9 hours ago|||
The latest of the three commits in the repo:

> 413,963 files changed

> +2,908,538

> -3,423,007

How is anyone supposed to audit that? I doubt you’ve looked at even a small fraction of the code, if any. Especially since this commit is two days after the second. Pure vibes.

i2km 4 hours ago|||
Madness. Makes me think back to a coding horror article from 2006 (I think) where it was accepted that even 500k loc codebases were generally incomprehensible by a single engineer. Now we’re at the stage of almost 500k FILES changing on a single commit…

And people still seem to believe they know what’s going on…

Yokohiii 7 hours ago|||
what the freaking hell
anonymous908213 11 hours ago||||
Where's the source code for the version that was already caught cheating? Prompting Claude to remove the evidence of cheating and then publishing that doesn't undo the cheating.
malisper 10 hours ago|||
Fair point: the 0.4-beta source doesn't prove anything about the benchmarked binary. So don't take my word for it or rely on the source we published as evidence. Instead, check the submitted binary itself: https://pgrust.com/downloads/archive/2026-09-clickbench-snap...

If you run it with PGRUST_GRAVITY_REPORT=1 it will report the code path hit for each query. You can see that all the queries go through the general query engine

The binary does contain hand-written kernels in the irprobe files. These were used for testing. You can validate that when running the benchmark, those files are dead code

The engine supports a narrow subset of SQL: scans, group-bys, filters, and sorting. That's enough to run ClickBench. It doesn't support e.g. subqueries which is why some of the follow up queries failed

verdverm 9 hours ago||
> check the submitted binary

You keep giving this same answer to no one's satisfaction. Saying go check the binary is worse than saying go audit 400k+ files. How do we know the Ai has not cheated in the code path logging? How do you know that it has not?

The more you make excuses, the more we get suspicious

(copied and pasted from another place you gave this unsatisfactory answer)

verdverm 10 hours ago|||
we don't have the commits we need to audit

the first commit has 400k files, the other two more than 1000 each, if you are going to ask others to audit this scale of ai generated code, can you tell us what you have done to audit it?

What I have seen is your Ai adding a lint test to make sure it doesn't cheat again. Are you personally aware of this file? How can you ensure it doesn't alter it and reinject the hand rolled benchmark queries? Will you be reviewing changes more thoroughly going forward?

https://github.com/malisper/pgrust/blob/38634b408dea373f3944...

transparency is the way to end the controversy, which appears to be sharing the full commit history based on HN responses

For clarity, I do not think you personally cheated or did anything nefarious. This is more another example in the "too much eyes free coding" columnar database.

malisper 10 hours ago||
Unfortunately, we have some sensitive stuff in our internal repo that we can't share. Fortunately, you can check the binary we submitted yourself: https://pgrust.com/downloads/archive/2026-09-clickbench-snap...

You can run it with PGRUST_GRAVITY_REPORT=1 and it will log the codepath that was hit for every query

On the lint, yes, I'm aware. It's one layer of defense. When we were prepping for the 0.4-beta release, we generated a large number of fresh queries and made sure the engine runs them and performs well across all of them

verdverm 9 hours ago||
> you can check the binary

You keep giving this same answer to no one's satisfaction. Saying go check the binary is worse than saying go audit 400k+ files. How do we know the Ai has not cheated in the code path logging? How do you know that it has not?

The more you make excuses, the more we get suspicious

> It's one layer of defense.

Needing to put in tests to make sure the Ai doesn't cheat is an interesting development in software development. I personally see it as a big red flag and evidence the machines are not going to replace human developers. It's categorically slop or the opposite of quality and care in development.

hitekker 11 hours ago|||
For those curious, see the accusation here https://github.com/ClickHouse/ClickBench/pull/2165 and then the HN thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50205816

HN is waiting for the source code for pgrust 0.4-preview to be released, the version which allegedly cheated Clickhouse benchmark. So far, the people (person?) behind pgrust has not committed to releasing the offending code, and has instead offered other code (0.4-beta, not preview).

anematode 11 hours ago||
The author claimed that it was an honest mistake, but looking closer at the original PR removing it, his explanation doesn't make sense.

Maybe what's happened is that their bots reward hacked their way into special-casing the benchmarks without a proper audit from the humans involved, and now they're doing vibed damage control....

verdverm 10 hours ago|||
This is almost certainly what happened. The first commit has 400k+ files, there is no way one person audited that.

The project has tell tale signs of eyes free coding and ralph-like loops.

tensor 11 hours ago||
I’ve been using the latest agentic frameworks and have come to realize that the discourse around vibe coding and slop really needs more nuance.

There is a gulf of difference between someone who doesn’t understand how to program “vibe coding” software and an experienced software developer using ai to write code with heavy direction, review, and best practices.

Today both would be said to be “vibe coded” but we really need to differentiate them. Also, if everything I’m hearing from people is true, it sounds like most corporate code is now completely ai written in the latter way I described. It’s interesting we don’t hear commercial software being called slop yet. Maybe it’s coming.

In any case, ai is far more capable than I realized. Not sure what to make of it.

youngtaff 4 hours ago||
I think we should be more ambitious with the font size we use…
theturtletalks 13 hours ago|
I'm building an open-source Shopify for every vertical and built a software factory to do it. I envisioned this before LLMs, but LLMs are finally making it possible!
More comments...