5 ms·

I've absolutely engaged in making personal software [0] thanks to the age of LLMs. But to be honest, my time using Emacs didn't teach me to "build personal sof

I've absolutely engaged in making personal software [0] thanks to the age of LLMs. But to be honest, my time using Emacs didn't teach me to "build personal software". My Emacs set up was extremely brittle, and it was a nightmare when I tried to use it across Windows & macOS. My university project was written using an unholy combination of org-mode & some workflow to create a beautiful LaTeX file, and I couldn't tell you how to recompile it (if I were to try, I'd probably get an LLM to literally translate it to LaTeX). I want my life to have as little maintenance as possible, and making my own software for everything isn't always compatible with that. [0]: A rewrite of a NETFX application in Rust, simply because the 20 minute installation time irked me: https://github.com/bevan-philip/wlan-optimizer https://github.com/bevan-philip/wlan-optimizer

deleted 5mo ago
[deleted]
TacticalCoder 5mo ago
> I want my life to have as little maintenance as possible, and making my own software for everything isn't always compatible with that. So LLMs are good enough to make personal software, but not good enough to maintain them?
- MrJohz 5mo ago
  It's usually easier to build something that maintain it for extended periods of time, particularly if that maintenance requires adding new features.
- virgil_disgr4ce 5mo ago
  > So LLMs are good enough to make personal software, but not good enough to maintain them? I mean... yes? Maintaining software means looking at issues opened on github, keeping your own list of feature requests and bug fixes, deciding if and what to fix, deciding when to fix, and if you're lucky/cursed, reviewing PRs from randos. ANY of this means diverting attention from your day job/client work/kids/???. Can some of this be theoretically automated by an LLM? Uh, maybe? But I'm not sure how much that would help.
- shaokind 5mo ago
  Less about the capabilities of LLM software, but more about my willingness to spend time to deploy them, debug them, etc. I don't want to spend time on dealing with change. Hence why I'd rather purchase tools, where I pay for the developer to a) prepare for any maintenance, and b) will perform the maintenance needed. (Of course, the maintainability of software with current generation LLMs depends a lot on how well your architecture them. I've got pure vibe coded slop, that can be very difficult to wrangle.)
d0mine 5mo ago
“Those who say they lack time to build tools are precisely the ones who cannot afford not to.”
e40 5mo ago
Have had the same emacs setup on linux, windows and macos for 15 years. Honestly, it's the best thing in my computing life.
- ubermonkey 5mo ago
  Paralleling Linux and MacOS is pretty simple, but the last time I tried to make the same config work properly in Windows it was a nightmare b/c of the path issues.
  - dspillett 5mo ago
    In the past when I've seen someone extolling Windows/Linux compatibility for something as complex as a detailed Emacs setup, they were using WSL or one of the wrappers like Cygwin rather than native Windows compiles of the tooling.
    - tom_ 5mo ago
      For whatever it's worth, I've always only ever used the native Windows build of Emacs, and I've never had any awful problems sharing my config between Windows, Linux and macOS. I'm sure I had to expend at least a bit of effort to make this work initially, but it wasn't enough for the process to stick in my mind, and the ongoing effort doesn't feel like it's added up to much. (I admit it's added up to more than zero though! Keeping (require 'cmake-mode) working reliably on Windows and macOS has proven a minor annoyance, and fonts seem to require a degree of system-specific attention.)
      - johanvts 5mo ago
        The problem is the dependencies, getting hunspell installed and finding the dictionary files for example. I normally only get a new computer every few years and each time stuff like that is a new pain. And dont even start with treesitter, i cant compile anything on windows and always end up using prebuild dlls.
        5mo ago
iLemming 5mo ago
> I want my life to have as little maintenance as possible I honestly can't even relate to what that even means. I'm a programmer - my everyday job is all about changing the behavior of computer systems - local, remote, cloud, embedded, etc. Requirements change, scope fluctuates, problem space evolves - grows and shrinks, accretion is unavoidable. I need to routinely move between language stacks, different data types, formats, CLI and web tools, protocols, paradigms, OSS and proprietary apps. That means I have to constantly adapt, my control plane has to keep up with the flux. Automation is key - you must develop a mentality for that - every little annoyance can be and shall be automated. That is an endless, non-stop transformation of my workflow - continuous maintenance of my tooling. But that is not some toilsome, reactive maintenance. Thinking that you're a programmer that doesn't want to constantly build software for your own sake is a delusion - it's like a cook that hopes to turn on the stove only in the restaurant, but won't touch a knife at home. Emacs is the cook's home kitchen. I'd say there are two kinds of maintenance: reactive (fixing breakage, keeping up with churn) versus generative (shaping tools to match your evolving understanding). Programmers instinctively dislike the first and should be drawn to the second. Emacs is almost uniquely suited to generative maintenance because the tool and the work share the same substrate. I get your complaint about Emacs specifically, it's a common: "too much work to set up", which usually means: "I don't want to invest before I get value", which honestly is not wise, strategic thinking. Treating Emacs as the universal tool for minimizing total maintenance burden over a career, over a lifetime is.
- peacebeard 5mo ago
  To summarize: your claim is that choosing to spend your energy on anything other than your emacs setup is a catastrophic failure in terms of ROI, a delusion, and a sort of dereliction of identity as a programmer. My rebuttal: dude, relax.
  - iLemming 5mo ago
    Are you even reading what I wrote? What's with the childish tone, someone dropped your keyboard rate when you're a kid or something? Emacs is a tool, not a religion. There are plenty of talented, accomplished programmers who can relate to what I said, and never even used Emacs. There's no "Emacs setup" for me, just like there's no "ricing my browser" - I do expect my web browser to work exactly the way I want (or at least as much I can get out of it) - that requires managing extensions, keybindings, extension settings, security options, disabling some annoying features, etc. It's an instrument, and requires the same type of "maintenance" and tweaking. Sure, it might not be as constant as for Emacs, but after all - web-browser is a targeted tool, Emacs is a universal one.

deleted 5mo ago

[deleted]

TacticalCoder 5mo ago

> I want my life to have as little maintenance as possible, and making my own software for everything isn't always compatible with that. So LLMs are good enough to make personal software, but not good enough to maintain them?

MrJohz 5mo ago
It's usually easier to build something that maintain it for extended periods of time, particularly if that maintenance requires adding new features.
virgil_disgr4ce 5mo ago
> So LLMs are good enough to make personal software, but not good enough to maintain them? I mean... yes? Maintaining software means looking at issues opened on github, keeping your own list of feature requests and bug fixes, deciding if and what to fix, deciding when to fix, and if you're lucky/cursed, reviewing PRs from randos. ANY of this means diverting attention from your day job/client work/kids/???. Can some of this be theoretically automated by an LLM? Uh, maybe? But I'm not sure how much that would help.
shaokind 5mo ago
Less about the capabilities of LLM software, but more about my willingness to spend time to deploy them, debug them, etc. I don't want to spend time on dealing with change. Hence why I'd rather purchase tools, where I pay for the developer to a) prepare for any maintenance, and b) will perform the maintenance needed. (Of course, the maintainability of software with current generation LLMs depends a lot on how well your architecture them. I've got pure vibe coded slop, that can be very difficult to wrangle.)

d0mine 5mo ago

“Those who say they lack time to build tools are precisely the ones who cannot afford not to.”

e40 5mo ago

Have had the same emacs setup on linux, windows and macos for 15 years. Honestly, it's the best thing in my computing life.

ubermonkey 5mo ago
Paralleling Linux and MacOS is pretty simple, but the last time I tried to make the same config work properly in Windows it was a nightmare b/c of the path issues.
- dspillett 5mo ago
  In the past when I've seen someone extolling Windows/Linux compatibility for something as complex as a detailed Emacs setup, they were using WSL or one of the wrappers like Cygwin rather than native Windows compiles of the tooling.
  - tom_ 5mo ago
    For whatever it's worth, I've always only ever used the native Windows build of Emacs, and I've never had any awful problems sharing my config between Windows, Linux and macOS. I'm sure I had to expend at least a bit of effort to make this work initially, but it wasn't enough for the process to stick in my mind, and the ongoing effort doesn't feel like it's added up to much. (I admit it's added up to more than zero though! Keeping (require 'cmake-mode) working reliably on Windows and macOS has proven a minor annoyance, and fonts seem to require a degree of system-specific attention.)
    - johanvts 5mo ago
      The problem is the dependencies, getting hunspell installed and finding the dictionary files for example. I normally only get a new computer every few years and each time stuff like that is a new pain. And dont even start with treesitter, i cant compile anything on windows and always end up using prebuild dlls.
      - 5mo ago

iLemming 5mo ago

> I want my life to have as little maintenance as possible I honestly can't even relate to what that even means. I'm a programmer - my everyday job is all about changing the behavior of computer systems - local, remote, cloud, embedded, etc. Requirements change, scope fluctuates, problem space evolves - grows and shrinks, accretion is unavoidable. I need to routinely move between language stacks, different data types, formats, CLI and web tools, protocols, paradigms, OSS and proprietary apps. That means I have to constantly adapt, my control plane has to keep up with the flux. Automation is key - you must develop a mentality for that - every little annoyance can be and shall be automated. That is an endless, non-stop transformation of my workflow - continuous maintenance of my tooling. But that is not some toilsome, reactive maintenance. Thinking that you're a programmer that doesn't want to constantly build software for your own sake is a delusion - it's like a cook that hopes to turn on the stove only in the restaurant, but won't touch a knife at home. Emacs is the cook's home kitchen. I'd say there are two kinds of maintenance: reactive (fixing breakage, keeping up with churn) versus generative (shaping tools to match your evolving understanding). Programmers instinctively dislike the first and should be drawn to the second. Emacs is almost uniquely suited to generative maintenance because the tool and the work share the same substrate. I get your complaint about Emacs specifically, it's a common: "too much work to set up", which usually means: "I don't want to invest before I get value", which honestly is not wise, strategic thinking. Treating Emacs as the universal tool for minimizing total maintenance burden over a career, over a lifetime is.

peacebeard 5mo ago
To summarize: your claim is that choosing to spend your energy on anything other than your emacs setup is a catastrophic failure in terms of ROI, a delusion, and a sort of dereliction of identity as a programmer. My rebuttal: dude, relax.
- iLemming 5mo ago
  Are you even reading what I wrote? What's with the childish tone, someone dropped your keyboard rate when you're a kid or something? Emacs is a tool, not a religion. There are plenty of talented, accomplished programmers who can relate to what I said, and never even used Emacs. There's no "Emacs setup" for me, just like there's no "ricing my browser" - I do expect my web browser to work exactly the way I want (or at least as much I can get out of it) - that requires managing extensions, keybindings, extension settings, security options, disabling some annoying features, etc. It's an instrument, and requires the same type of "maintenance" and tweaking. Sure, it might not be as constant as for Emacs, but after all - web-browser is a targeted tool, Emacs is a universal one.