Depends on the person, I never really had fun telling someone else what I wanted built or drawn. I've always enjoyed the process more than just the results, and having the results without the intellectual activity is boring.
For software, the increase usage of AI code makes my team move much faster, but our software isn't robust anymore and I fear that our longterm mission is being compromised by the endless slop. Favoring quick implementations that AI can make versus good implementations, and lazily relying on AI makes my teammates not develop a deep understanding of the work, which ultimately limits the solutions they can develop. YMMV.
Also, I don't understand what's funny about your image? Is it that it's bad?
It's that I asked for an SVG of a circle and it created a beautiful gradient filled animated technical diagram. I wanted something closer to <svg><circle cx="50" cy="50" r="40"/></svg>
Qwen 3.8 27B on xhigh is a delightfully weird over-achiever.
Here's another fun one: "Generate an SVG of a pelican eating caviar and drinking expensive wine in a tony SF restaurant" - it thought about that for almost an hour! SVG and thinking trace here: https://tools.simonwillison.net/markdown-svg-renderer#url=ht...
Aside from fun with over-engineered SVGs, I'm finding the challenge of getting AI-generated code to be robust, maintainable and better quality than if I'd typed it out myself to be deeply intellectually stimulating.
> I'm finding the challenge of getting AI-generated code to be robust, maintainable and better quality than if I'd typed it out myself to be deeply intellectually stimulating.
Yea that's why I started my comment with "it depends on the person", in response to you asking what's not fun about having AIs do what you tell them. For many, coercing a tool to do something you can likely do yourself better isn't ideal, and at least for me, is just inefficient use of time (in the long run) and a headache. It also zaps the fun out of any task since now you move from searching for a good solution using your priors, to now validating that the LLM has a solution that works, even if it's not optimal. The searching for a good solution is for some, the fun part, which is eliminated by agentic coding, since that search inherently relies on you writing code and seeing what works IMO. The coding is an essential part of the thinking here. An analogy would be doing a math problem by hand versus reading the solution in a textbook. I can give concrete examples if you'd like.
For your SVG examples, I have used AI for a similar use case, the construction of 3D scenes for robotics via a text prompt and an asset catalog. I wish I could get the same richness as your SVG examples, the LLMs fail too hard on all 3D tasks given, even after spending a high amount of engineering effort on a suitable harness + tools. Also like your SVG example, it often doesn't give a realistic, or even nice output, and coercing it to do so, likely takes longer than just creating the image/3D scene yourself.
Isn't that just for data collection though? I imagine the fully trained model they're expecting to have will be able to map thoughts -> text. The data collection will naturally need to have the 2 sets in order to do self-supervised training.
Remember that a lot of people have no internal monologue, and even for those that do, it's silent most of the time. They might hope to get that, but the typical case is for there to be no text or voice to extract.
Right but if someone was given a task, internal monologue or not, there will be some brainwave pattern to map thoughts to typing, right? Otherwise, how is the person typing? For a sufficiently complex task, I don't think you can rely on reflexes alone. If I understand the data collection method they're using, they will sit someone in front of a keyboard, give them some task, and collect both what they type out and the associated collected brainwaves.
Sure, but remember the use case being discussed is interrogation. You have a tool that can collect what someone is trying to type, but they aren't trying to type.
And, my point was, there may be zero words to collect at all, because they'll tend not to be actively thinking about any words.
> But non-invasive methods are getting much better. The hardware is improving and getting cheaper, though I apologize for being vague about the particularities of our hardware.
The statement implies that the company has some secret hardware that can, or at least, is close to doing that. That would blow my mind, but the author seems to believe it.
I really do like Zed, it's snappier than VS code and with pretty good vim emulation. Even through SSH, the native UI allows for no network latency, compared to something like vim+terminal. Like many other posters, I do feel like the core editor is getting worse.
Some issues I've encountered recently at work:
- Routinely encounter bugs with the python language server, it's particularly slow when compared to using VSCode. All that snappiest disappears when finding symbols after the '.' is considerably slower than my typing speed.
- I found similar issues with C++ code bases.
- It's also so hard to debug when something goes wrong. I was trying to find out why pyright keep spinning on startup, but the "LSP logs" never show anything.
- Connecting via SSH always opens the repo in restricted mode, even though I check the "Trust all projects in" checkbox. Never happened before.
- Debugger UI is a mess. Make a run, stop the run, edit the task.json, try running again, and 2 tasks show up. One for the old and one for the new.
--
I stuck with it because I really do like the UI, the performance, and initially it seemed to be an improvement from VS Code for my workflows, but lately I've been moving back to code as it seems more stable. I don't really use agent features, so I don't think I'm the target customer for this or other priority Zed features.
I do see the usefulness of something like this, I'm interested to see if the new agentic style of programming will result in the "code" part of editors becoming second class (for the better) and will allow for more rapid development. Although I'm not looking forward to read my coworker's "threads" of how a feature was made, I have a feeling that it will be more difficult to read than the raw code, as from my experience, LLMs don't really employ terse and effective communication (might not be entirely fair, I found ChatGPT /study mode pretty good.)
--
Anyone know of a good replacement editor that might meet my usecase? I'm really a batteries included type of developer.
Yeah apparently Zed was engineered for speed but I find it very slow in general, especially on startup.
VS Code can slow down as you add functionality, but Zed often just doesn’t have that functionality at all. So the proper comparison is “VS Code minus all extension-provided features” which is actually pretty fast.
He states at the start of the article the tenets of clean code he's arguing against, not just the general OOP of it. Shows how ignoring a certain tenet leads to increase performance, that's the thrust of the article. He routinely in the article goes back to the tenets he's arguing against.
The article is titled "'Clean' Code, Horrible Performance", that's the argument being made. Why is it a stupid conversation? If you think the trade-offs are necessary, then fine, argue that. But that doesn't change the objective measures that the author did to demonstrate the thesis of article.
It's a problem chosen by the author of Clean Code. How is it a strawman? The author of the article is directly refuting the style of the problem/solution that the original author chose, and arguably demonstrated a better approach. That is not a strawman.
Using `switch` is not a better approach if the design allows for outsiders to add their own shapes at a later time. Using `switch` probably is a better approach if the range is shapes is fixed and new shapes can't be added, especially if the language's `switch` statement requires that all valid cases be included.
Sure, but I don't see what this has to do with what I said? I was arguing against the parents assertion that the author's example was a strawman.
For your point, what part of the design shows claims that shapes are to be added/removed by outsiders? You should design for what you know and can reasonably predict. Nothing in the article seems to claim that this problem is situated on outsiders adding their own shapes?
Let's ground the example. Suppose I was writing some 2D collision checking library where these operations we're useful. Now I did Triangles, Rectangles and Circles. If I predict that arbitrary shapes should be added, how should I go about it?
The vtable way could work, but as the author showed, you're likely going to get hit with a fairly significant performance impact. Now if you can reason about your use case and see that its not in a hot loop, then the vtable way should be good to go. But if it was called a lot, then you want that to be performant and find a different method.
Some thinking can lead you to the fact that you don't need a new class at all, you just need a general Polygon object, and use the switch method. Or going by the article, you can precompute the information you need that is constant, area, # of points and add those to a dynamically allocated array (or large enough statically allocated one), and have the best of both worlds.
My point is, you can't really say which one is better until you actually know what your use case and the constraints on your system/users. We need to know how the code is used. People complain about this being a simple example, but its an example that was in the "Clean Code" book. What's important is to realize that the Clean Code version might not be worse in terms of hard to measure things, like maintainability or eligibility, but it is empirically worse for performance, and that trade off matters for many use cases.
It's a strawman because Muratori took an obvious toy example meant to illustrate a concept (using classes and methods to dispatch on operations instead of using a series of if/else's as in Martin's prior example) and focused on what it did poorly (performance), but it was not meant as an example of high-performance code. It was an illustration of a concept that fit into a page. Attacking an illustrative example for not being realistic is kind of dumb.
I had to track down a copy of the book because I didn't have one on hand (thanks internet!) but that example is from chapter 6. The first listing is actually close to Muratori's code (except using classes instead of a tagged struct for dispatch but still using a procedural approach rather than dispatching off of methods), the second listing is the OO one that Muratori starts with. The point being illustrated is summed up in the book in these two quotes:
> Procedural code (code using data structures) makes it easy to add new functions without changing the existing data structures. OO code, on the other hand, makes it easy to add new classes without changing existing functions.
> Procedural code makes it hard to add new data structures because all the functions must change. OO code makes it hard to add new functions because all the classes must change.
And amusingly, given that this whole thing is meant as a criticism of Martin and Clean Code he has this right after those two statements:
> Mature programmers know that the idea that everything is an object is a myth. Sometimes you really do want simple data structures with procedures operating on them.
So at least in the book, he has right here, after the "bad" code Muratori is criticizing, addressed the fact that you need to choose your representation based on your circumstances.
An article proving its thesis that clean code can cause bad performance isn't a strawman. He wasn't intentionally using a weaker argument of Bob Martin just to find flaws. He was taking an example from the book to show where it failed.
He also could have showed the if-statement version, and it wouldn't have some of the performance impacts, but there's a big chunk of the article that's independent of that. There would still be performance benefits, since the article isn't purely switch statements vs vtables. It went through a series of clean-code tenets that were shown to cause performance problems. That's the authors point, performance deteriorates when following those principles. Even in real world examples this will happen, are you claiming otherwise?
I feel like everyone is just talking over the article, unless you disagree with the actual thesis, that the clean code tenets listed cause bad performance, then you don't really disagree with the author here right? You can argue in spite of the performance decrease, the clean code method is better for real systems, which is fine and I have no issues with that, but that's a separate claim you should prove, and state clearly to who ever is working on the code you're writing.
> but it was not meant as an example of high-performance code
That's part of the point, the clean-code version can't be high-performance. The tenets of it contradict how the hardware works, and causes slows down (not necessarily all the time, but it does typically.)
> He also could have showed the if-statement version, and it wouldn't have some of the performance impacts, but there's a big chunk of the article that's independent of that.
You just explained why the piece comes across (when taken as a criticism of Clean Code) as a strawman. Muratori explicitly ignored the example in the book with the better performance and Martin's statement that the second way (using method dispatch) wasn't always the right way.
That is exactly what a strawman argument does. It ignores parts of the original statement to argue against something not claimed. Muratori exaggerates the idea that Clean Code says you must use the second (slower) approach even though the book itself says that you should use your judgement and pick the correct style based on what you need to do. While not explicitly addressed in the book, this means that if you need performance, then the book is not objecting to the first (or Muratori's) style.
I just don't see how this is a strawman. It's not a logical fallacy to take an argument that X is good, and say it has Y flaw that wasn't considered. If you want to talk about how steak and eggs are good for building muscle, it wouldn't be a strawman for me to argue that its bad for your heart, and there are better methods.
If the author was purposely mischaracterizing what clean code was advocating for, arguing against the weakest version of what Martin was saying was clean code, I can see that being an issue. But he took a section of the code that Martin claimed was clean code, and arguing against the provided example being good code despite it fitting Martin's idea of clean.
The book says to pick the best version, and maybe it was improper for the author to omit the other version, but even the other version has issues that the article addresses. You can use the more performant switch case version and see how omitting other principles of clean code cause gains from even that version.
Again, the claim in the article was not purely vTables vs Switch statements, there several other claims that have nothing to do with that, for example the reliance on not using internal details of a class, or DRY which appear in both the OO and procedural versions of Martin's code IIRC.
The book actually makes a stronger claim than the author's IMO. The books claim is that there are principles that make clean code, and a person should follow in order to make their code clean. The implication being that not following these rules makes your code unclean (but Martin doesn't explicitly say this iirc, so this may be too strong of a statement). Martin doesn't really provide useful metrics to back up this claim either, so its hard to tell what parts of it to take as sage advice, and what really doesn't work. The author of the article at least provides empirical data to back up the thesis, which is that this "Clean Code" has terrible performance. It doesn't matter if Martin doesn't argue that it is performant, the fact (as proven by the data shown) that the code has worse performance than other methods is enough to prove the author's claim, and is not a strawman.
reply