3 ms·
I have been using Claude to build a clone of Bash in Rust (https://github.com/jdstanhope/huck https://github.com/jdstanhope/huck). It has been goin going on now
by Jdstanhope 2mo ago
I have been using Claude to build a clone of Bash in Rust (https://github.com/jdstanhope/huck https://github.com/jdstanhope/huck). It has been goin going on now for 81 days, 2600 commits and I have covered a good chunk of the features such that I can source by .bashrc with a number of extensions. It has been doing pretty good but it will sometimes spend hours to do few line fix and other times pushback on making big changes despite have over 3000 tests.
That being said, I am still guiding it on a regular basis and only recently let it run open ended trying fixing small to medium size bugs. The next stage will be try let it run in a loop trying to fix the 100 issues it has identified as well as getting most of the bash test suite to pass.
- rco8786 2mo ago> it will sometimes spend hours to do few line fix and other times pushback on making big changes despite have over 3000 tests. you ever worked with human engineers before? :D
- Jdstanhope 2mo agoI was going to say that it's pretty much exactly like working with an experienced software engineer ... except it never seems to take a step back and look at the bigger picture. It will happily fix the same class of bugs over and over without realizing a bigger change is required.
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- francoisdevlin 2mo agoWait, are you talking about llms or people?
- boothby 2mo agoIt's sad that LLMs are learning to devalue human life from people like you.
- SwtCyber 2mo agoThat’s a direct result of how they’re fine tuned. RLHF and other mechanisms reward quick, locally correct answers that solve the user’s immediate problem. A reward for a solution like "take a two-day pause, rip out half the modules, and rewrite the core" just straight-up doesn't exist in training datasets
- justincormack 2mo agoI find most of the time it would be fine on its own, but every now and again you avoid a really bad degradation through guidance. Some kinds of big change definitely problematic.
- khazhoux 2mo agoVery cool, but I'm skeptical. Over the last year, every Cursor/Claude/Codex project I've worked on devolves into shitty, grafted-on, duct-tape and bandaid'ed architecture, with "fixes" just working around broken code, and tons of duplication that lead to whack-a-mole. The system works at first, but then bugs start piling up and eventually take over. Everyone I talk to shares the same experience. Not to mention that if I, human overseer, don't course correct it many times a day, it goes off into Neverland. Yet I see comments and articles like above every week, where someone says "Yeah, I just left my agent run for a few nights, and then it made this awesome tool." There is a huge gap here, but I can't pinpoint it yet. Either I (and everyone I talk to) is Doing It Wrong, or your code is actually flawed at its core and bugs will take exponentially longer to fix and never converge, or... I just need to let my agent run for 3 months??
- twister2920 2mo ago[dead]
- GrinningFool 2mo agoThe only way I've found to make it work on long term AI-code-only projects is to have it constantly refactor, with the axes of refactoring usually provided by me.
- cyanydeez 2mo agoYeah, i basically guide it by writing docs, tests, then code. Then try to get it looping that way. It occasionally happens reliably. If it can reliable prune context itd be pretty close to autonomous. If it achievef that, id sit down and plan out much larger scopes but for now, its just feat->docs->tests|code->loop till done.
- peder 2mo ago> tons of duplication that lead to whack-a-mole The future is duplication. Code is no longer meant to be read by humans but by machines.
- 2mo ago