What if it wrote all of the boilerplate and just let you focus on the important bit that deserves your scrutiny?
You could say I failed every single project I ever built because it took many iterations to get to the final deliverable stage with lots of errors along the way. So more nuance would be needed.
But when it comes to LLMs suddenly we get all gleeful about how negatively we can frame the experience. Even among HN tech scholars.
Actually, I can tell; I ran split on the C source and got things like this:
disk_space.c:144:16: Only storage bin.ref_bin (type void *) derived from variable declared in this scope is not released (memory leak)
So I'm looking into a Rust version with Rustler now.
Also comes with a built-in BEAM allocator so the runtime properly reports NIF memory consumption.
the big advantage is that it will automatically box/unbox to/from c values for you and generate sane error messages (which rustler does not, last i checked) when you pass incompatible terms in to the function.
on the other hand rustler lets you precompile (which is coming in a future version of Zigler)
As you said, the very title of the article acknowledged that it didn’t produce a working product.
This is just outrage for the sake of outrage.
Then why not say "mostly didn't work"? I read the article and that's the impression I got.
The OP's comment isn't an outage, it's more like you intentionally painted it as an outrage with a comment that reads more like an outrage.