4 ms·
For a project like this, relying on AI assistance also makes it effectively dead in the water.
by zahlman 4mo ago
For a project like this, relying on AI assistance also makes it effectively dead in the water.
- minimaxir 4mo agoWhy?
- bt1a 4mo ago[flagged]
- all2 4mo agoTime-cost for machines instead of willing knowledgeable humans. The former requires money, the latter requires passion. Arguably, passion for a project is without price.
- zero1009 4mo agoSomeone pays for the AI? That's the new human maintainer.
- bloppe 4mo agoHypothetically, maybe. In practice, probably not.
- CookieCrisp 4mo agoIf it's valuable enough to someone, and it isn't keeping up, someone will pay. If it's not valuable enough for someone to pay, then who cares?
- jpfromlondon 4mo agoPlenty of important things have been born of passion without necessity.
- nozzlegear 4mo agoWho will pay if someone, somewhere is not passionate about it?
- throw1234567891 4mo agoYou can spin up a model locally and pay yourself. Who will maintain the project if the passionate sole maintainer burns out?
- inigyou 4mo agoWhich model works well?
- all2 4mo agoQwen 3.6 27b at q6 works decently well on 24GB of VRAM
- nozzlegear 4mo agoI strictly use only local models, so I agree, but the project was built with Fable so my argument hinges on the assumption that the maintainer is going to continue using Fable and needs to pay for it.
- jack_pp 4mo agoHumans have time-cost too, much higher than machines. Considering SOTA right now, for a project like this it would make more sense for the community to contribute and verify tests, sponsor updates with $.
- wild_pointer 4mo agoTrust
- simonw 4mo agoGood luck implementing and then maintaining a project of this size and complexity at ~100 lines of verified code per human developer per day.
- mwcampbell 4mo agoI wonder how you arrived at that number. Is it perhaps a number that we should aspire to, if we want to write high-quality, maintainable code by hand?
- simonw 4mo agoI've been doing some reading recently around what the literature expects a professional software engineer to produce in a day. In ~1976 Mythical Man Month era it was around 5 lines of fully debugged assembly. Code Complete 2nd edition ~2004 bumped that up to 10-50 delivered lines of code per day. I found other estimates of around 20-60. I need to pull them altogether into a cited article. Based on that plus my own experience I think 100 lines per day of production-level, reviewed and debugged code was a reasonably higher target for a professional software engineer up until just a couple of years ago. Today I'm frequently pushing 2,000 to 4,000 - and that's not vibe coded junk (I can easily hit 10,000+ if I'm not reviewing anything), that's code that I've reviewed and am happy to put my name to. Obviously counting lines of code is a stupid, easily gamed metric. But I still think there's signal there. If you want to build a sophisticated piece of software you're going to have to write a bunch of code to do it. Writing at 1,000+ lines of code per day vs 100 will get you there faster.
- frollogaston 4mo agoNot convinced. I was looking for an answer like "it doesn't actually have parity with CPython." If it does, that's a decent indication that it can be sustained.