I don't have an example, but I know the pattern. You are working on your software, security researcher finds a bug, it's in your project, for you it's just another bug, but for them it's a point on their CV, so they make a theater about it, and expect priority in dealing with it. It must get tiring if you get many of these.
I feel that Zig will stay a niche language. In this world, there is no reason for corporations to use anything but Rust for this kind of code. And without the corporate push, it will probably still exist for a long time, but the D trajectory is what I predict. I really like the language and I hope it gets more popular, but it seems unlikely to me.
With the amount of problems I had using Redis Sentinel, I really wish there was another way. On multiple occasions, with completely different deployments, it got itself into a non-repairable state where the only option was to drop it and setup the replicas manually. I was hoping someone would do a Patroni-like project for Redis, but I've not found it yet. I've moved all persistent data to PostgreSQL and use a number of Valkeys behind Envoy proxy as a cache.
Well, I'm just an extremely happy user. I've honestly tried to find an alternative, and couldn't. I'm using it in the context of solo developer and it provides a huge value to me.
It's actually common, many companies develop their products this way. The source is available, you can see the VCS, but you can't participate in the development. That's why I see this as signal that it's going to turn into a company.
What made open source great, is the fact that if you find a problem, you can patch it. It's what motivated me, anyway. Ladybird is not SQLite, it's under development and very likely will be forever. To me it looks like they are transitioning into a company, where this model makes sense.
Indeed, while there is communication that the situation with merging external pull requests should improve, the reality is that it's easier to land a patch in Linux, than in Zig.
I wonder how can a new browser engine survive with the source available model. Like, why would anyone support this, unless they have business association with the Ladybird developers?
I've tried many AI code review tools. Nothing comes close to the depth of CodeRabbit reviews. It's the only such tool that can find real logical bugs. I'd love to be able to get Claude Code to do similar quality of review, but I can't get it right, no matter how I try.
Look, it's not that long time ago when we had the xz malware. The pattern is always the same. Maintainer of the project is doing X, people start to pressure them to do something else, maintainer gives up and opens the project up to other maintainers, and then many things can happen. If there is any lesson from the incident, open source maintainers should never allow the pressure to happen, ignore it if it's too strong, block people. Rsync has been maintained for a very long time. Bugs happen, even regression bugs happen. People don't get to dictate how should the volunteer do development.
The result might be closing bug trackers for the core open source projects. Or make them invite only. Even fundamental projects like Linux or LLVM accept AI contributions.
That's up to the maintainer to decide, no? If they decide to use AI to write more tests, then they do it. It's not like they owe the public something. If the "public" wants to take the project over and maintain it, they can fork it, but it's a thankless job.
It's not just I/O, it's also mutexes, condition variables, time, etc. It's not horrible, but it does add up, so calling it super efficient is a stretch.
I've said it before, but I don't like Opus past version 4.5. It became unresponsive, thinking for too long without feedback, sometimes seemingly getting stuck. I guess it might be marginally better for some benchmarks, but when using it as coding assistant, the new models are worse. Even the new Sonnet versions do that. I'm slowly getting used to Haiku-level LLMs with the hope to run it locally at some point. It's less autonomous, but maybe that's for the best.
My work was kind of similar to the `std.Io` plans, so when I learned about it, I started aligning the project to that interface. Now it's a full fledged implementation of the interface. It's actually the first async implementation of the interface, the one in stdlib is very far from finished.
There are many shortcomings in the API, especially missing timeouts everywhere. It was clearly designed by people working on the compiler and other local tools, and not much network services, but I think it's a great improvement in the Zig ecosystem and hopefully people can now write reusable libraries.
But if you have stack growth, the way Go does it, then the stack you allocate is actual memory you use. You are just trading heap allocations for stack growth. I started to see the stack as a super fast allocator that is always available.
I've spent the last year working on an async runtime for Zig and I really grew fond of stackful coroutines. Your just program your code as if everything was blocking. The main benefit is that you can use whatever library, it doesn't have to be async aware. Heck, I could even use C libraries, and they would work correctly with my coroutines. I really don't understand why GC-based languages decided to go with stackless coroutines, given that they could do what Go is doing.
The disadvantage is that then you never learn how GIMP works and will forever frustrated it's not Photoshop. Sometimes it's better to take the hard way.
I don't get it, I've been using Ubuntu from the very early days, that's probably 20 years now. And I really didn't encounter any serious problems. Over the years, I had one instance of driver update breaking wifi. That said, it was always on a Thinkpad or my own desktop PC.
I still think the best process with Claude Code is: 1) ask it to gather context that you know is relevant 2) only then ask it to do whatever you want it to do. If you do it the other way around, it will over research, over think and generally make more of a mess.
It works exactly the way I'd work. I have learned to navigate large codebases before LSPs existed. I used vim for many years and would grep to find the relevant files. When I first tried Claude Code last year, I was like WTF, it's going exactly what I'd be doing.