IRC channel logs
2026-08-17.log
back to list of logs
<loon>JohnCowan: thankfully, the expansions I care about are supported in "extensions" that are de facto standard <JohnCowan>Sure. The trouble is that if uouuse bash you will get word expansion methods that are not part of Posix. <loon>"extensions" here meaning additional flags to glob(3) <loon>and fwiw, I checked glibc and afaict it doesn't use /bin/sh for wordexp <loon>I'm not sure why the standards doc mentions shell expansion; it's a pretty bizarre choice (especially for libc) for the reasons you've given <old>rlb: Yeah I think it would make sens to add a more generic predicare for pass-if-exception. I just quickly added to make it work with rnrs assert <old>s/predicare/predicate <rlb>old: ok right, I came up with something I'll push for consideration later that handles both what srfi-253 and utf8 need (and I think fixes a bit in the 253 tests). <mwette>old: Are you assuming the only way for contributors to contribute is via push request? <old>patches/PRs this apply to both <old>what matter is that the commits are signed-off-by and the DCO is certify <old>I also posted a message on both mailing lists <mwette>I read it. Seems very reasonable. <JohnCowan>I added this comment: "Quite apart from the other issues with LLMs, nobody knows what the copyright status of LLM-generated code may be. If there is an appropriate use of LLMs today, it is in finding code defects, not in creating either production or test code." <bremner>fwiw, a strong position against LLM use would be enough for me to convert from racket to guile as a teaching language. Unfortunately that will be substantial work as I am currently using some slightly oddball racket teaching languages <bremner>as a free software author, I very much understand that whether I use guile or not is not a big deal, but maybe some unscientific hint about sentiment <old>bremner: you are saying that taking a strong stance would me you move from racket to guile ? <old>s/would me/would make <old>Could you expand on that? Maybe on the codeberg ticket or mailing list <old>I think it is important to record the voices of each (if they want to) so that this decission is not simply a push from mine <old>tho, I suspect must Guilers would agree with what I wrote <bremner>uh sure. I have a codeberg account, so whichever you think is better. <old>it is at your preference <bremner>normally I'd say mailing list, but Savannah defeated me again ;). <old>bremner: thanks for the comment! <civodul>i didn’t know Racket/Rhombus were “into” LLMs <civodul>kinda sad and surprising given that this comes from passionate PL people <old>civodul: LLM is kind of like a drug <old>You try once, you might be hook on it for a long time <old>It's very rewarding and I think it triggers something in our brain similar to euphoria <old>wonder if there are studies about this <ieure>old, My work gave me an ultimatum of "use LLMs or be fired," so I'm using them while I look for a less ridiculous job. But I cannot comprehend the person to whom this would be addictive; this objectively sucks. <ieure>In the way where I'm like "i wrote explicit instructions which are being ignored for the nth time" and "none of that has anything to do with what I said" <ieure>Like a junior dev who never learns a single thing. <old>ieure: I know peoples that skip diner to be with their LLM <old>instead of talking with others <old>That kind of behavior can only be explained with addiction in my personnal experience <ieure>old, Sounds like an entirely different usecase, I understand why people get addicted to that. <ieure>old, r/MyBoyfriendIsAI is one of the most horrifying things I've ever seen. <ieure>loon, It's terrible out here. <ieure>Might take a 50% pay cut to work at a friend's money-losing weirdware pinball tech thing. <civodul>old: yeah; but then, these people who work on PLs, the things to describe code to fellow humans, invest in LLMs? what’s the point? <civodul>many who’re into LLMs consider that PLs don’t matter anymore: you just give orders in plain English and the program “gets written” <loon>everyone who says "there's no innovation in $field" do not know anything about $fiel <loon>or $field for that matter <civodul>the selling point of Racket is its DSLs, which supposedly allow people to write domain-specific code more easily <ieure>civodul, I spent *hours* last week explaining to frontend people how their LLM PRs were profoundly and severely wrong. <ieure>I know people believe that you can just rub a LLM on it. But my observations are that it's very easy to get stuck in expensive ratholes when you don't know enough about the domain to understand what the code actually does. <ieure>Also had my non-technical manager try to vibecode a feature ~last year. Probably two weeks of back and forth on that; when it launched, performance was so bad that it failed due to timing out half the time, and it was removed. <loon>the thing that befuddles me most (besides the handwaving the ethical catastrophe) is if you're a hobbyist programmer, doing it for fun, what's the fun in having the forest and book burner do it for you? <ieure>loon, I actually think that in at least some of those cases, it makes more sense than in a professional one. Most of my personal projects are because there isn't something that does it already, and while I may also enjoy the experience, I'm really looking to just have a thing that works how I want. <ieure>loon, And in that context, poor code quality doesn't matter very much. <ieure>(this is absolutely not an endorsement, do not use LLMs for any purpose, ever) <ieure>Just saying, I understand the appeal of "I can poop out that thing I've been wanting to do for a long time but never had time for" <loon>but like. even in cases like that, the fun is in the doing <loon>ACTION doesn't think she will ever get it <cbaines>maybe you're quite fortunate to be in that position <old>civodul: right that's good point <old>perhaps we will not see any more rust port then <old>if LLM can just write good C <cbaines>I remember back during the Covid lockdowns, I had fun designing software, but when it came to putting in the hours and hours to just get it written, it was still a struggle to motivate myself, even though I had little else to do! <loon>cbaines: that doesn't mean you should turn to the plagiarism machine though <old>I'm fortunate to be in a small compagny with 10 peoples, half of them not using AI and we have a policy of respect your co-worker time <mwette>LLMs will become more capable with time; it will be hard to stay away <loon>I dunno, I'm doing a great job right now <ieure>mwette, I am not sure that's the case; also, there is no business model, everyone's losing trillions, and the only path anyone has to "better" makes them even less efficient. <mwette>There will be a shakeout, I believe, but for now it's a race. If the technology is economical, it will stay. Cars replaced horses, textile machines replaced tailors, etc. (For the record, I've never (knowingly) used ChatGPT, copilot or the others.) <mwette>Not sure you know, but California will soon (via SB 943) require watermark in images generated by (large) AI providers. <mwette>It actually covers 'media' not 'images'