With the use of quotes there, you've put those words in my mouth. I didn't say that.
What I am trying to express with the statement you refer to is that zig appeals to me on an aesthetic level. It suits my tastes.
I mentioned liberty because I appreciate that zig allows me to have complete control of memory allocations, and gives me quite a deal of control over the metal. I like this and I like that I don't have to appease a borrow checker. Zig's compiler and type system is strict enough to guide me to correctness, but the experience, broadly, is not so onerous that programming becomes tedious and frustrating.
These qualities, I suspect, resonate with my individualistic tendencies.
I'll bite. The first language I could "just write" in was C. I had internalised the language and its standard lib and didn't need the internet to work with it.
Rust is pushed by many as the replacement to C, because of the memory safety guarantees. I'm sympathetic. I worked with Haskell for a time, so I get it. But Rust seems quite complex. There are so many language features that there's memes about it. There's also the friction and learning curve.
So, for fun, I choose zig because, like C, I can hold most of the language in my head and "just write." I choose zig because it does a great deal to help me write correct and highly performant code. I can use arena allocators and defer and cure my code of many memory issues. Then there's the various language rules around pointers (optionals, slices, etc) that help me write correct code. There's the built in testing and the test allocator. I love that comptime and the build system are not special cases, but rather are just garden variety zig. I love the simplicity and elegance of it all.
I also choose zig because I prefer the liberty it affords me. I am responsible for each and every allocation. It appeals to my libertarian sensiblities.
Yeah, nah. Not so sure about that. I love zig, and I appreciate the rigour, care and thought that goes into the language and it's libs. What Andrew Kelley and the team are doing is excellent work, creating a useful, simple language with which to write efficient, correct programs.
His politics don't matter to me. Hell, if the politics of technologists dictated whether I used their products, I'd have to go live in the wilds, without any tech. :-)
Yeah, I'm aware. MitchellH posts about it quite a bit, most recently about AI "psychosis". Also, much of ghostty was created without the use of AI, I think. More recently, they've been using it to find bugs, improve performance, and generally refine and enhance ghostty and libghostty.
The LLM is the finishing tool, not the architect or core developer.
Yeah, there was a good article on here the other day where the author suggested going slower with AI and using it to help produce higher quality output. I think the idea is to be quite "hands on", coding much in the old way, but to use AI to help with, for example, test coverage, error mode detection and handling, refinement of the solution/feature, etc.
At least that's how I read it. :-) I'm learning that there's a place for the LLM but it's the sandpaper, not the chisel.
Yeah, maybe it's rose coloured glasses on my behalf. Those examples you mentioned, I would 100% agree with. It's some of the best software out there. And yeah, there's probably always been rubbish about.
I guess I hope that the good stuff keeps coming and the dross falls away. More signal, less noise.
It's not particularly revelatory to point out that this project has been generated largely by LLM (claude most likely, given the CLAUDE.md in the repo).
I wonder if this is just what we get now: low quality code, expressed rapidly. We are excited by the promise only to be disappointed by the reality of the implementation.
There are still a few new things around that are carefully and thoughtfully developed and put out into the world. zig itself. MitchellH's ghostty. And there's still all the older foundations of really wonderful, robust, software created by people like Linus Torvalds and couple of generations of open source devs, that applied great skill, ingenuity and hard work to produce the very best software.
But I fear that I'm in for a period of lamentation as we get wave after wave of promising sounding developments, but where the reality is low quality, LLM generated crap that you really shouldn't use if you want secure, stable performant, production-ready software.
Seems like perhaps we've been through a golden age of really great software and that now it's coming to a close.
On the other hand, I have quite the visceral reaction to the name because of the influence Hegel had on Marx, and subsequent 20th century critical theorists.
The industry and the wider world are full steam ahead with AI, but the following takes (from the article) are the ones that resonate with me. I don't use AI directly in my work for reasons similar to those expressed here[1].
For the record, I'll use it as a better web search or intro to a set of ideas or topic. But i no longer use it to generate code or solutions.
"Thinking (as a SWE) is still very much the most important skill in SWE, and relying on AI has limitations."
I'd go further and say the thinking is humanity's fur and claws and teeth. It's our strong muscles. It's the only thing that has kept us alive in a natural world that would have us extinct long, long ago.
But now we're building machine with the very purpose of thinking, or at least of producing the results of thinking. And we use it. Boy, do we use it. We use it to think of birthday presents (it's the thought that counts) and greeting card messages. We use it for education coursework (against the rules, but still). We use it, as programmers, to come up with solutions and to find bugs.
If AI (of any stripe, LLM or some later invention) represents an existential threat, it is not because it will rise up and destroy us. Its threat lies solely in the fact that it is in our nature to take the path of least resistance. AI is the ultimate such path, and it does weaken our minds.
My challenge to anyone who thinks it's harmless: use it for a while. Figure out what it's good at and lean on it. Then, after some months, or years, drop it and try working on your own like in the before times. I would bet that one will discover that significant amounts of fluency will be lost.
LLMs are not for me. My position is that the advantage we humans have over the
rest of the natural world, is our minds. Our ability to think, create and express ideas
is what separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom. Once we give that over to
"thinking" machines, we weaken ourselves, both individually and as a species.
That said, I've given it a go. I used zed, which I think is a pretty great tool. I
bought a pro subscription and used the built in agent with Claude Sonnet 4.x and Opus.
I'm a Rails developer in my day job, and, like MitchellH and many others, found out
fairly quickly that tasks for the LLM need to be quite specific and discrete. The agent
is great a renames and minor refactors, but my preferred use of the agent was to get it
to write RSpec tests once I'd written something like a controller or service object.
And generally, the LLM agent does a pretty great job of this.
But here's the rub: I found that I was losing the ability to write rspec.
I went to do it manually and found myself trying to remember API calls and approaches
required to write some specs. The feeling of skill leaving me was quite sobering and
marked my abandonment of LLMs and Zed, and my return to neovim, agent-free.
The thing is, this is a common experience generally. If you don't use it, you lose it.
It applies to all things: fitness, language (natural or otherwise), skills of all kinds.
Why should it not apply to thinking itself.
Now you may write me and my experience off as that of a lesser mind, and that you won't
have such a problem. You've been doing it so long that it's "hard-wired in" by now.
Perhaps.
It's in our nature to take the path of least resistance, to seek ease and convenience at
every turn. We've certainly given away our privacy and anonymity so that we can pay for
things with our phones and send email for "free".
LLMs are the ultimate convenience. A peer or slave mind that we can use to do our
thinking and our work for us. Some believe that the LLM represents a local maxima, that
the approach can't get much better. I dunno, but as AI improves, we will hand over more
and more thinking and work to it. To do otherwise would be to go against our very nature
and every other choice we've made so far.
But it's not for me. I'm no MitchellH, and I'm probably better off performing the
mundane activities of my work, as well as the creative ones, so as to preserve my
hard-won knowledge and skills.
YMMV
I'll leave off with the quote that resonates the most with me as I contemplate AI:-
"I say your civilization, because as soon as we started thinking for you,
it really became our civilization, which is, of course, what this is all about."
-- Agent Smith "The Matrix"
This is backwards. He's still 50 cent, but to have the buying power he had in '94, he'd need to $1.09. But he's still 50 cent, so really, in today's money he's more like 23 cent.
What I am trying to express with the statement you refer to is that zig appeals to me on an aesthetic level. It suits my tastes.
I mentioned liberty because I appreciate that zig allows me to have complete control of memory allocations, and gives me quite a deal of control over the metal. I like this and I like that I don't have to appease a borrow checker. Zig's compiler and type system is strict enough to guide me to correctness, but the experience, broadly, is not so onerous that programming becomes tedious and frustrating.
These qualities, I suspect, resonate with my individualistic tendencies.