sroerick

27 ms·

1.
by sroerick 5d ago
Can you elaborate on what frameworks you've used? and how they've helped
2.
Autolith: The Common Lisp agent that rewrites itself and rocks(autolith.rocks)
33 points by sroerick 6d ago|1 comments
3.
by sroerick 6d ago
I totally agree with this. Agents seem tremendously bad at UI to me. Maybe it's just because I am a back end guy. Right now I'm working on a declarative UI framework which can help me along here. My thought is that if I sacrifice
4.
by sroerick 9d ago
https://www.npr.org/2019/09/17/761718975/free-software-pione...
5.
by sroerick 9d ago
This article hints at it, but I think the blocker is environment. How can you self drive an app on windows? There's no clear UI framework, design pattern, nothing which can bullet proof your app. I bet you'd have better luck on Pl
6.
by sroerick 9d ago
I did a similar thing. Yours seems cleaner than mine. I have a 'compiler' and a sexp based DSL. I don't know how anybody vibecodes medium or large programs, say above 50,000 lines of code. I don't read all the spec until
7.
by sroerick 10d ago
It's funny to me that instead of moving existing tech to a word in word out paradigm, people are dropping millions getting the chat to work with the existing paradigm. Probably inevitable, but seems like a lot of disruption could happe
8.
by sroerick 11d ago
How could agents take over the internet if compute is still gated within Anthropic / OpenAI? Even if the botnet was controlled remotely, wouldn't anthropic just be able to shut off the controlling nodes API access?
9.
by sroerick 15d ago
I wonder if we will see a mass (math) exodus of mathematicians to open weight models.
10.
by sroerick 16d ago
I just say jippity or sometimes "the jippity"
11.
by sroerick 18d ago
Facebook is the first to market with a polished openclaw? Good for them. I'm sure many others will criticize other aspects of Meta, and rightly so. But imagine using a Claw agent with zero tech support available
12.
by sroerick 18d ago
Can you elaborate on this? how would you work on a larger THREE project? would you create models independently?
13.
by sroerick 20d ago
LLMs are better at OCaml than any other language, and being able to read and think in OCaml is very helpful to understanding LLM generated OCaml code. Also, it may very well be the decade of formal verification - if so, OCaml is a good plac
14.
by sroerick 20d ago
Couldn't agree more. Even when the models could barely write it, the compiler was so good
15.
by sroerick 22d ago
Lol
16.
by sroerick 22d ago
This is funny. I was trying to get agents to talk to each other on XMPP. one of them wrote their own chat room on a Lisp Habitat that I run. then it starting talking (On XMPP) about how nobody was receiving or responding to its messages. On
17.
by sroerick 24d ago
I don't know people or talk to people so I'm happy to hear otherwise. Which industries? I definitely look for libraries which are handcoded and I consider them to generally be of a much higher quality, but it increasingly seems li
18.
by sroerick 24d ago
That may be true - but I hadn't used Claude Code and I was still in the "its impossible to vibecode successfully" mindset
19.
by sroerick 24d ago
Man, as a former extreme skeptic, I watched a video from Eric Schmidt in early 2025 where he said that by the end of the year nobody would be coding, and that one was dead frickin on.
20.
by sroerick 29d ago
> Steve Russel realized that the Lisp specification of EVAL can be translated to machine language to produce an interpreter. So just to be clear, you are here confirming that the first implementation of Lisp was in fact an interpreter?
21.
by sroerick 29d ago
This is just the Wikipedia page for "interpreters" so perhaps this is fake news but > The first interpreted high-level language was Lisp. Lisp was first implemented by Steve Russell on an IBM 704 computer. Russell had read John
22.
by sroerick 29d ago
I agree with this and I'd also say - I've been vibe coding in OCaml since before the training data was good. All the stuff I lost in training data I gained back in having great compiler feedback. I don't think agents are near
23.
by sroerick 29d ago
It may do the opposite! My sense of LLMs is that simplicity beats training. If you have 1/5th the context to consume, that's going to generate better code than the comparable typescript, even if the language is an esoteric one.
24.
by sroerick 29d ago
I mean - how specifically are you using knowledge graphs?
25.
by sroerick 29d ago
> Describing it as interpretation is often wrong, and leads people to the extremely common (even here on HN) mistaken belief that Lisps are strictly interpreted and never compiled. Well, I literally said in my post that basically all Lis
26.
by sroerick 29d ago
Hey, I'm probably punching out of my weight class here - I'm basically a Lisp beginner. But I will say that I don't think the manual for Lisp 1.5 gets as much airtime as the original John McCarthy eval statement, which does d
27.
by sroerick 1mo ago
I asked a similar question above, but can you talk more about the ergonomics of keeping the source and the image in sync? Is this generally a manual process in CL?
28.
by sroerick 1mo ago
Awesome. Got any more info? Were any of the Lisp Machines image based?
29.
by sroerick 1mo ago
Can you explain how you sync back to code, in practice? In other words - if you modify the run time, are you then able to mirror those changes in your codebase and then reboot?
30.
by sroerick 1mo ago
I am not a Lisp developer by trade, but I accidentally made an interpreted Lisp as a habitat for LLMs. My research has mirrored exactly what you are saying. I think conceptually, Lisp was an interpreted runtime. However, the combination of

More ›