I tried out the model it's pretty great, better than ~~gpt5.4~~ gpt-5.4-mini perhaps, atleast close enough to sonnet 5 in performance that I didn't notice much of a gap.
Not really at gpt 5.5 tier though, and probably below glm 5.2...
But most of all it just works for me for most things I tried and it's exceedingly cheap so there is no reason not to use it, if you need a foss model.
> In this context (where you don't plan on publishing you stuff on crates.io) a “crate” are just a directory at the root of your repo, the ergonomic impact is literally zero.
Is not true, you can't have circular out of crate dependencies. This often means you now need a third crate that's a trait crate, but then you can't implement external traits on external types, so you need bridge crates, and so on.
Rust's limitation of performance requiring lots of crates indeed has real impacts on projects beyond simple hello worlds or trivial cli apps.
Considering it to be a zero impact issue is rather reductive, even in the context of the language's design principles itself.
Rust for all it's good sides has had a lack of interest from core team and energy to drive real valuable changes beyond the nightly blockers into stable, or maybe they are working real hard and the boulders are so hard to move that we can't see any change looking outside in.
Is it justified after the gargantuan effort that was merging Async and GATs? Yes.
But acknowledging the problem doesn't help us solve it.
This is to say, Rust is an amazing labour of love project that seems rather stuck in time due to lack of investment/time/effort or all of the above, I am not sure, but it's moving slower than I would like, at solving the problems Rust developers face everyday.
And yes Rust compiler is slow (very slow is arguable, compared to modern C++ it isn't that bad, but compared to say Go without cgo, its horrid), Cargo is just bad, without proper hermetic builds and stuff, even when I setup sccache for our team and our cache hit rate remained below 20% and most of it was just C++ deps hitting the cache.
Just to be clear Zig builds are quite slow too, especially on windows where debug builds also use llvm.
TBH Zig debug builds on Linux also don't really feel that fast, C still compiles faster for me by a considerable margin.
Either way as someone doing Rust everyday for last 8+ years, 5+ in small/large teams, I have lots of complaints and I am sad, it has been over years of me complaining without nearly enough progress, they have a survey declare ambitions, and then well... things just don't move much.. not nearly as much as I would have expected.
Honestly given I have been a rust dev for over half a decade now, I should instead of commenting here probably be figuring out if I can contribute to Rust to help things along (faster?).
But most meetings and discussions happen at very EU/US centric times, and number of non US/European core contributors in Rust is also rather small(I don't know of one but I hope there are a few) so as someone not in those circles, I don't have the energy to figure out my way in, with my day job.
Tldr; Is Rust the language for the job here, likely. But the question should be why couldn't have been the language Bun was written from the very start. Why does Zig or C++ or C seem so much more productive.
Sorry for ranting about this but this felt a little relevant since you claimed people complaining, are likely people who have never worked with Rust.
So basically since US stopped OpenAI and Anthropic for 4 weeks, it allowed all other AI Labs to almost catch up.
GLM 5.2 caught up, Cognition RL'ed Kimi 2.7, Grok 4.5 is out, DeepSeek v4 GA is out in a few days...
What is the moat? and why should we pay for the expensive tokens today instead of just waiting a few months/weeks and getting AI for significantly cheaper?
I must say, I feel like companies spending Millions on Anthropic tokens are just negative capex'ing and wasting money, even OpenAI is barely ok pricing...
After some crying over not getting 5.6 access early and losing Fable and then getting it back, after calmly trying out these models again, I am back to thinking they are over hyped and Anthropic and OpenAI is minting marketing from it.
Prompting Fable is a lot easier sure, like you can actually ask it to build X and it will produce something close-ish to X, but there is hardly anything it can do I couldn't before, and it still fails to do basic stuff and I have to redo it.
Especially this threatening to pull access, extending access, limiting access is all signs that point to the fact that either these companies are deeply mismanaged.
So it's mismanaged because there really isn't a viable product but just hype, as oss models catch up and break down need for these full size models I am feeling more certain that it's not even remotely worth betting on AI.
If there was infinite demand as people posit there would be zero needs to extend this, there would be zero need to market it, they could literally stop all marketting and just keep selling shovels and printing money.
This AI will they won't they saga just leaves a horrendously bad taste for me.
I say that as someone working on the tech, and with a lot of belief in AI technologies. I just get pushed more into the thinking that this is all just a big bubble, sure the tech might be real but it just doesn't make sense how it's being wrapped up and sold/presented.
I strongly believe good products sell despite the marketing, for instance Linux won in servers despite alternatives because of its merits, AI should be able to as well.
Why can't I just enjoy the product and why do I have to look for conspiracies I don't know but these companies sure as hell are doing something very shady.
Property may be a social construct, but the costs of living are not.
You can question ownership in the abstract, and I am not even against that conversation. But that does not answer the actual point here. We still live in a world where food, rent, healthcare, clothing, hygiene, servers, tools, and time all cost money.
So if someone gives something away out of kindness, access, public benefit, or community spirit, that does not automatically mean everyone else is entitled to industrialize that kindness for their own business.
Open source is not a mystical anti-property pact.
Open source is not a contract where people are expected to provide endless unpaid labour for others to build businesses on top of. At some point this stops being a discussion about sharing knowledge and becomes a way to justify taking advantage of people’s work.
I just don't like these replies, if this was sarcasm, it might not have worked for me. I just find these social comparisons deeply unserious when the discussions are against theft or harm done to actual people with actual human needs.
Knowledge is free as in *free beer once in a while because you genuinely can’t pay*, not free as in *scale up the freemium model, keep grabbing free stuff daily, weekly, monthly, and then start running your own pub with the free beers you took from the neighboring pub.*
This discussion is intellectually dishonest. Either some people here genuinely dont understand the concepts of kindness and gratitude, or they do understand them and are just choosing to spread falsehoods anyway.
Just because my beer pub isnt going out of business because you took some free beers doesnt make it ethical for you to exploit my kindness and use those free beers to build your own competing beer pub.
If people are still confused: that setup is not sharing knowledge. It is stealing with nicer branding to help you and your friends sleep at night.
Can you folks add performance per watt as a metric to these comparisons, I honestly want to understand where AMD fits in the stack in terms of actual performance to dollars. I have had talks with companies wanting to build data centers outside of US and find it hard to source anything Nvidia in sufficient capacity and scale.
If AMD is competitive performance per watt and roughly reliable in terms of software support which is what most folks outside of US prioritize above all else, since outside of China and US electricity tends to at a relative premium.
Maybe if they make smaller data centers viable at the right price, AMD could be part of the stack outside of US where ever Nvidia is more limited in supply. Though I have genuinely no idea what sourcing an AMD GPU looks like.
I have never seen a company use AMD outside of wafer and a couple others mostly in US.
Genuinely intriguing or maybe not really (could be this stuff is common knowledge) and I am just stuck in my Nvidia bubble here.
bought opus magnum recently fun game, I have played exapunks a while back, it's not my cup of tea. I love programming for fun, but the language didn't gel with me. I liked their other games better, opus magnum is definitely in the top 2
I just fired it up, couldn't find anything related to soft body or deformers, neither does there seem to be anything regarding common issues around 2d platformer features character mover is sort of moving in that direction does seem to provide better controls over how I would setup slide/jump and stuff, but still seems like not a great choice for a 2d game that I would like to build.
The biggest issue with overly generalized 2d physics systems is ideally they should be built as patch works and provide escape hatches as the default, since in most 2d games you don't want real world physics.
Angry birds and early 2010 games were an exception when real world esque physics was the well interesting thing. Example Angry Birds, and Cut The Rope.
The above blog even seems to suggest that soft constraints were added recently which is well surprising.
I just feel like Box2D is very lacking albeit less now.
Let me give you an example imagine you want box2d to allow applying weird forces to player most of the time, but you also don't want to allow the player to clip through at certain movements and speeds to avoid weird cases where your character hits a wall and loses all momentum because that's how the physics should work, or it forces some rotational momentum which you have disabled...
Again in a lot of these character controllers you always end up with custom physics setups either way, and this is where I feel like box2d was especially lacking they seem to have worked on it with character mover, but it seems just very late.
Again I have used a lot of it in the past for making shitty flash style games, and it has been great but I honestly don't think there is a great use for it as it stands today in the projects I like to work on.
Ofc it's also largely because I find writing my own physics engine to be easier than picking up a library, and I would probably copy some of the code verbatim if needed for collision optimizations and stuff, but Box2D just feels a tad behind the times.
Again I am not a big time dev, and I am certain since Godot ships Box2D there must be a lot of users of it, but I just don't care enough at this point.
I have been using an in-house/handrolled physics engine for the last few years so not sure if something has changed, but being able to modify the physics engine for arcade or other non-realistic style games was a big let down over time as well.
Basically optimizing your game for feel was quite hard with Box2D in general.
For a long time there wasn't deformers in Box2D (not sure if it's in there now), I hacked by own but I was a dumb 17yo and it was a horrid mess back in the day. Maybe AI could do better than the old me, but I gave up pretty quickly after not getting good results.
So basically lack of support for non-rigid bodies and lack of easy customisability made it not age well for someone like me.
But I know people who have had performance issues with it when building large maps/worlds as well so there are other issues.
Again all of these could have been fixed if they paid more attention to it, more dev time, but it was free so I couldn't really ask for more as a broke student.
And best part was you could run it on any hardware, I remember cooking up a small 2d demo on a rpi back in the day. Fun times.
I feel like Box2D, was pretty good for the time, I didn't feel like it aged quite as well, mostly because where the solutions built internally went, but hoping box3d is great for it's time as well, would love lots of fun physics engines.
As a former extensive Godot contributor(I haven't contributed much since post 4.1 era), I am sad to see people target a project like Godot with AI Slop PRs.
I am with the maintainers on this one, I am not quite sure how they plan to filter out AI slop, but atleast all slop PRs should stop now, I am sad to not have the free time to contribute to the project or maybe just not enough energy.
In generally, I am just sad that this is where the public contributions and open source has come down to, couldn't we all have been more fun working together, what makes someone think they can vibe code their way to a meaningful PR and not even mention that it's a vibe PR.
Why does this PR appear to add any value, and if it does provide some insights into solving a problem, why do you expect it to be merged and reviewed?
The best defense of these drive by vibe PRs can be I found a bug, tried to fix it, seems to work, here's my code, someone who has more time could take a look and see if it has any insights.
Also only works on PRs that are specifically bug fixes or address some issue specifically. Not your omega 10K+ line feature commits...
Why do some people feel compelled to make these PRs? I am genuinely curious, I don't hate these people but do these folks think that this is adding some value?