akiarie

7 ms·

1.
by akiarie 2mo ago
Honestly the more I see this the less I like Golang. Generics was the worst thing ever added to the language. We're making it easier for library builders and harder for ordinary code to be written.
2.
Opinion: Agents > Unix Shell
3 points by akiarie 2mo ago|1 comments
3.
EWD361: Programming as a discipline of mathematical nature [video](youtube.com)
2 points by akiarie 3mo ago|0 comments
4.
by akiarie 4mo ago
Never mind, someone else already made this point: https://electric.ax/blog/2026/02/19/amdahls-law-for-ai-agent...
5.
Amdahl's Law for LLM generated code
6 points by akiarie 4mo ago|4 comments
6.
by akiarie 4mo ago
True, but thing is that "artificial intelligence" is meant in the opposite sense. It's meant as something that is / will be equivalent to human intelligence, not as something useful but vastly inferior.
7.
"Subligence" – proposed coinage for LLM "intelligence"
4 points by akiarie 4mo ago|6 comments
8.
by akiarie 4mo ago
I propose that those of us who don't believe that AI is actually intelligence look for a term to refer to its "thinking" that isn't "intelligence", because this helps our weak minds keep things straight.
9.
by akiarie 4mo ago
C is still, by far, the simplest language that we have. Although many newer languages are safer (with the exclusion of Rust, primarily by being slower) the same kinds of issues that are there in C are there in these languages, their effects
10.
by akiarie 5mo ago
"Verbose" is the wrong adjective. Yours is a terse projection into a lower space, valid in itself, but lacking the power and precision of its archetype.
11.
by akiarie 5mo ago
This is such a beautiful distillation of everything I believe about the dangers of over-reliance on AI. I implore thee, good sir, to write a longer essay on this.
12.
by akiarie 8mo ago
Obviously because he was one of the architects of the censorship regime of the late 2010s and early 2020s that nearly changed the internet into a three-letter-agency controlled space. If that isn't a risk for a censorship-resistant app
13.
Human Scale Software vs. Open Source(posixcafe.org)
3 points by akiarie 8mo ago|1 comments
14.
Show HN: Hyloblog – minimal, Git-based SSG for writing (not theming)(hyloblog.com)
3 points by akiarie 2y ago|0 comments
15.
by akiarie 2y ago
Not even remotely. if (x > 0) { /* code */ } else { /* more code */ } Branch coverage just means that all the lines above are executed in some test. That's fundamentally different from dealing
16.
by akiarie 2y ago
0db is an interface for Xr0, so it's the same thing essentially.
17.
by akiarie 2y ago
Shouldn't it be called "We can't parse C" since we can only parse a trivial subset of it?
18.
by akiarie 2y ago
It's even less impressive than that. That we can parse a subset of C. That's all there is to see here.
19.
by akiarie 2y ago
You missed the `!=`, `==` (in many instances), bitwise operators, recursion and `goto`. (And much, much more.) Xr0 is a work in progress, and we'll get there step-by-step.
20.
by akiarie 2y ago
> It really isn't. The second example is ... So will you admit that the first example has been sufficiently addressed? Because I was commenting on the problem involving the Collatz conjecture. > It's safety also "depend
21.
by akiarie 2y ago
It's because we're dealing with an extreme example in which a program's safety depends on the resolution of an open problem. If the program's safety depends on the semantics of C and how they've been used in a funct
22.
by akiarie 2y ago
Thought provoking stuff! I really appreciate how much effort you've put into this. However, the main reason why this argument is flawed is it omits the heart of the matter: the annotations. Xr0 empowers programmers to propagate safet
23.
by akiarie 2y ago
> Xr0 1.0.0 will enable programming in C with no undefined behaviour, but for now it's useful for verifying sections of programs. Literally on the website. The purpose of the prototype is to show the feasibility of the approach we&#
24.
by akiarie 2y ago
> You should error on constructs you don't yet support. Not doing so makes it very difficult to ascertain how well Xr0 works. You're right. We should. (We will be adding this as we are able.) > You didn't do either thou
25.
by akiarie 2y ago
One final point – I cannot emphasise strongly enough that we aren't making this for Rust programmers. There's nothing wrong with loving a programming language that has changed the world and what is possible in systems programming.
26.
by akiarie 2y ago
> If annotations aren't copies of function bodies (which is really the only sensible choice), you need to deduce whether a function body matches the annotations. "Structural similarity" between C and your annotation syntax
27.
by akiarie 2y ago
> Even on this small subset of C it took me five minutes to get an out of memory error and a further five minutes to craft a C program with a double free that passes verification [10]. Nice work with the program. However, the only reason
28.
by akiarie 2y ago
> If the annotation is basically just a copy of the function body why have any annotation at all? This is a profound question. Xr0 annotations seem to be copies of the function bodies, but they aren't actually. What they are is a
29.
by akiarie 2y ago
> Rust's restrictions can also be interpreted as restrictions on interfaces. A function taking (a non-`Copy` type) by value is a function that Xr0 would annotate as `free`ing that variable, for example. Yes they can, and we said thi
30.
by akiarie 2y ago
I'm not very familiar with the equivalence problem, but at least for Xr0 abstracts (what we call the annotations attached to functions & loops) there is an extremely strong structural similarity between the implementation and the a

More ›