continuational

Here's GLM-5.2: http://show.ahnfelt.net/demos/glm5.2-pacman.html

I've been working on a typed, functional-imperative, full stack programming language with IDE support: https://www.firefly-lang.org/

What kind of setup do you have where implementing things is as easy as flipping a burger?

Been coding since I was a kid, MSc computer science, into programming languages (https://www.firefly-lang.org/).

We tried a few agentic coding tools at work, but they didn't really help.

Along came a project that required us to build a custom harness. One day we added some very basic coding tools to the harness at a whim, and it just immediately (and surprisingly) blew away everything we'd tried.

Now we do most coding through that, and it's a clear productivity boost (2x?). It still requires hand holding and review, and some amount of manual fixing.

But being able to build things much faster is a lot of fun.

Well it's not like most companies can pay for freshly made software; most software today is made for a wide audience, bought frozen and reheated in the microwave.

Maybe freshly prepared software made at home in a less-than-perfect manner for a tiny target audience is still a mouthwatering dish in comparison.

Been working on something like that for years: https://www.firefly-lang.org/

It's kinda funny there is still software coming out whose security model is "constantly ask the user for permission, and hope they never make a mistake".

It's been tried so many times before, and it never worked.

When you have a tradeoff between two parameters, which points dominate the others in the sense that you can't choose another point without getting less of one of the parameters.

Why ask GLM-4.7 instead of GLM-5.2?

If an alien lands on Earth and learns English, would you deem it non-intelligent if you can tell it apart from a human in conversation?

I think we should consider slime mold intelligent, and realise that it's a spectrum. Path finding is AI. There are probably forms of intelligence we have yet to discover.

Maybe.

School shootings happen every year in the US, yet guns aren't banned.

Besides, banning open models would put ordinary US businesses at a disadvantage compared to the rest of the world.

The parent post is saying that the officer didn't show up for 20 years, with no burglaries in your neighborhood in between.

I do, and frankly I enjoy my day more when I don't feel like I'm being a jerk, even towards a robot. But mostly as part of a follow up message.

I also think it signals that I was happy with that solution in the ongoing conversation.

On the other hand, I'm much more sloppy with my writing.

The token cost is irrelevant, tool calls and reasoning probably dominates.

Well, what if it "just" increased white collar productivity by 1.5x, what would that be worth?

Sure, but this is an example from the article, and pertains to sum types in general, not just Maybe.

I don't think so, where's the extra information in the Zig example?

In Rust, which is arguably also a low level language, it looks like this:

    enum Option<T> {
        None,
        Some(T),
    }

Do you really prefer this:

  fn Maybe(comptime T: type) type {
    return union(enum) {
        value: T,
        nothing,

        const Self = @This();

        pub fn just(the_val: T) Self   { return .{ .value = the_val }; }
        pub fn nothing() Self          { return .nothing; }

      }
    }

Over this?

    data Maybe a = Just a | Nothing

What's open about OpenRouter?

I'm working on Firefly, a programming language for full stack webapps:

https://www.firefly-lang.org/

To find slop in this submission, you don't have to look any further than the very first picture.

Got 50% in first try, the computer only made two guesses, one right and one wrong, and passed the rest.

Not long ago I was looking through programming language sites to figure out how to best introduce the language I'm working on.

ruby-lang.com stood out with a text in a big font:

Ruby is...

Followed by a paragraph about what makes Ruby special. I think that was an exceptionally simple and natural way of introducing something as complex as a programming language.

A programming language for the web: https://www.firefly-lang.org/

Sure, but one could imagine that there are people working at the supermarket who would also rather do personal stuff or go cycling. But there they are, serving you.

I think this kind of slop has negative value. It's unclear how much of the information in the comic is hallucinated, and the malformed code "for i = i1+|>" and nonsense text "(starts write hooks!" doesn't bode well.

But on Hetzner, you can usually get a dedicated server installed and ready tomorrow.

A few years ago I worked on TopShell, an attempt to reimagine the shell+terminal using functional programming: https://github.com/topshell-language/topshell#readme

It ticks some of the boxes, but tonnes of work would be needed to turn it into a full alternative.

Thank you! Yeah, I think some of the newer frameworks really complicate dataflow. We're trying to keep dataflow clear, though it's a big design space given the distributed nature of webapps.

In any case, if you take it for a spin, I'd love some feedback.

Working on a programming language for webapps!

https://www.firefly-lang.org/

Speed is not an optional feature on the web. The site above is written in Firefly, uses hydration, and scores 100% on PageSpeed Insights.

The language is largely complete, and we're now working on DX: Got a language server, a devserver, and some essential libraries.

Seems like we can join the club! https://www.firefly-lang.org/ is 218 kB uncompressed.