There is a balance to be struck. Not everyone is going to be comfortable with ralph loops. Some are going to be OK with running a single agent, some with advanced code completion or code generation for specific functionality and so on.
The tooling is going to change how we do development no doubt, but people are going to find their comfortable spot, and be productive.
A language targeting an LLM might be well served with a lot of keywords, similar to a CISC instruction set, where keywords do specific things well. Giving it building blocks and having them piece together is likely to pay off.
It's not about how it starts. It always starts small and measured, but once you open up to ads, you open up the pandora's box of enshittification paths.
Does it follow then, that we should socialize our losses and ignore their TOS? It looks like yet again - fortune favors those who ask forgiveness later.
I didn't have the patience to click through after visiting a few pages only to find the depth lacking.
About an hour ago or so I used Opus 4.5 to give me a flat list with summaries. I tried to post it here as a comment but it was too long and I didn't bother to split it up. They all seem to be things I've heard of in one way another, but nothing that really stood out for me. Don't get me wrong, they're decent concepts and it's clear others appreciate this resource more than I.
The flow was, me finding interesting pattern -> Claude ingesting the reference and putting it in a template -> Me figuring out if it makes sense -> push
Author here. Yes, CC is the maintainer. When I stumble on a decent idea, I would just feed it to CC to create a pattern out of it. This was my quick and dirty approach to a public learning log with an idea that I would get back to it at some point and clean it up. Which I did on a few occasions.
I agree. Software development is on an ascent to a new plateau. We have not reached that yet. Any skill that is built up now is at best built on a slope.
reply