joelreymont

6 ms·

1.
Hacking LLDB for a great Zig debugging experience(joel.id)
6 points by joelreymont 10mo ago|1 comments
2.
by joelreymont 10mo ago
Debugging Zig in LLDB is painful. Slices show up as { ptr, len }, optionals are unreadable, and slice[0] just errors out. Python formatters help a bit but don’t fix expressions. zig-lldb fixes everything… if you’re willing to rebuild LLDB a
3.
by joelreymont 10mo ago
Moving away from Github may end up killing the project.
4.
by joelreymont 10mo ago
I'll gladly discuss at length things that are near and dear to my heart. Facing random people in the public court of opinion is not one of them! Also, there's long-form writing in my blog posts, Twitter and Reddit.
5.
by joelreymont 10mo ago
Remind me please, when did I sign up to meet your expectations?
6.
by joelreymont 10mo ago
With all due respect, try to read things before opining on them. The PR explains why I did the work.
7.
by joelreymont 10mo ago
It's both but the focus is on the future.
8.
by joelreymont 10mo ago
I'm not trying to say that this is now projects ought to work right now. I do think this is where we are heading, though. No, existing open source projects are not ready for this and likely won't ever be. It will start in the corp
9.
by joelreymont 10mo ago
Yep, that's me! I will look into renaming myself, although don't think HN allows this.
10.
by joelreymont 10mo ago
It was a bug in my own modes to the Zig compiler not in the stock compiler itself.
11.
by joelreymont 10mo ago
This ought to be automated using AI. It could first judge whether the PR is frivolous, then try to review it, then flag a human if necessary. The problem is that Github, or whatever system hosts the process, should actively prevent projects
12.
by joelreymont 10mo ago
This is an excerpt from the session where AI is writing my Lisp compiler. What do you call this? I call this doing what a competent developer does! 39/40 tests pass. The native reader works for integers, hexadecimal, lists, strings a
13.
by joelreymont 10mo ago
Are you speaking from experience? Have you actually tried writing a "list" compiler?
14.
by joelreymont 10mo ago
Check the 2nd PR, the one in my repo and not the one that was rejected.
15.
by joelreymont 10mo ago
I agree with you.
16.
by joelreymont 10mo ago
It's not. It's absolutely justified for the OCaml maintainers to reject this PR. I feel completely different about my Zig PR [1] but, hey, it's not my playground and the Zig folks seem to be particularly opinionated. [1] htt
17.
by joelreymont 10mo ago
Which is something I agreed with and apologized for, and admitted was somewhat of a PR stunt. Now, what's your question?
18.
by joelreymont 10mo ago
I had $1000 in Claude credits to spend for the greater good.
19.
by joelreymont 10mo ago
I'm strictly talking about the 10-line Zig PR above. Well-documented and tested.
20.
by joelreymont 10mo ago
You can ask AI to write documentation for humans. Also, I'll try to break up the PR sometime but I'm already running Claude using two $200/mo accounts, in addition to another $200/mo ChatGPT, and still running into time
21.
by joelreymont 10mo ago
It wouldn't do much. I find that ChatGPT 5.1 was much better at reviewing this code than writing it so I had it review Claude's output until the review was clean. This is in addition to making sure existing and newly generated com
22.
by joelreymont 10mo ago
It's quite complicated in this case. The Jane St (OxCaml) DWARF implementation is also tightly coupled with the compiler.
23.
by joelreymont 10mo ago
I don't always use OCaml (meme coming in 1...2...3) and maintaining a fork is a significant undertaking. More importantly, being able to debug native OCaml binaries and actually see source code, values of variables, etc. is something t
24.
by joelreymont 10mo ago
I challenge you to actually demonstrate that the code was taken instead of generated or derived. Otherwise, you are just shooting your mouth off.
25.
by joelreymont 10mo ago
Try to spin up AI, tell it to add DWARF debugging information to the OCaml tree and then spend 5 minutes prompting. Come back and let us know the results.
26.
by joelreymont 10mo ago
They are super-polite! There's an issue with process, IMO, and changes taking too long to go through the pipeline. This is why Jane St forked OCaml and are maintaining their fork. They have way more money than the OCaml team at INRIA a
27.
by joelreymont 10mo ago
The key is that AI adapted, not stole. It's actually capable of reasoning and generating derivative code and not just copying stuff wholesale. See examples at the bottom of my post: https://joel.id/ai-will-write-your-ne
28.
by joelreymont 10mo ago
By testing the code I mean that I actually focused on tests passing and the output in the examples being produced by AI running lldb using this modified compiler.
29.
by joelreymont 10mo ago
Note that this PR works, was tested, etc. I was careful to have AI run through the examples in the PR, run lldb on the sample code and make sure the output matches. Some of the changes didn't make it in before the PR was closed but I d
30.
by joelreymont 10mo ago
Why would you be unwilling to merge AI code at all? Consider my other PR against the Zig compiler [1]... I was careful to make it small and properly document it but there's a strict anti-AI policy for Zig and they closed the PR. Why? I

More ›