This post is far more interesting than many others on the same subject, not because of what is built but because of how it it is built. There is a ton of noise on this subject and most of it seems to focus on the thing - or even on the author - rather than on the process, the constraints and the outcome.

▲

embedding-shape 15 hours ago | parent [-]

Thanks, means a lot. As the author of one such article (that might have been the catalyst even), I'm guilty of this myself, and as I dove deeper into understanding what Cursor actually built, and what they think was the "success", the less sense everything made to me.

That's why taking a step back and seeing what's actually hard in the process and bad with the output, felt like it made more sense to chase after, rather than anything else.

▲

jacquesm 15 hours ago | parent [-]

I think the Cursor example is as bad as it gets and this is as good as it gets.

FWIW I ran your binary and was pleasantly surprised, but my low expectations probably helped ;)

▲

embedding-shape 14 hours ago | parent [-]

I'm glad I could take people on a journey that first highlighted what absolutely sucks, to presenting something that seemingly people get pleasantly surprised by! Can't ask for more really :)

▲

jacquesm 14 hours ago | parent [-]

What is interesting is that yours is the first example of what this tech can do that resonates with me, the things I've seen posted so far do not pass the test for excitement, it's just slop and it tries to impress by being a large amount of slop. I've done some local experiments but the results were underwhelming (to put it mildly) even for tiny problems.

The next challenge I think would be to prove that no reference implementation code leaked into the produced code. And finally, this being the work product of an AI process you can't claim copyright, but someone else could claim infringement so beware of that little loophole.

	▲	embedding-shape 13 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Knowing you browse HN quite a lot (not that I'm not guilty of that too), that's some high praise! Thank you :) I think the focus with LLM-assisted coding for me has been just that, assisted coding, not trying to replace whole people. It's still me and my ideas driving (and my "Good Taste", explained here: https://emsh.cat/good-taste/), the LLM do all the things I find more boring. > prove that no reference implementation code leaked into the produced code Hmm, yeah, I'm not 100% sure how to approach this, open to ideas. Basic comparing text feels like it'd be too dumb, using an LLM for it might work, letting it reference other codebase perhaps. Honestly, don't know how I'd do that. > And finally, this being the work product of an AI process you can't claim copyright, but someone else could claim infringement so beware of that little loophole. Good point to be aware of, and I guess I by instinct didn't actually add any license to this project. I thought of adding MIT as I usually do, but I didn't actually make any of this so ended up not assigning any license. Worst case scenario, I guess most jurisdictions would deem either no copyright or that I (implicitly) hold copyright. Guess we'll take that if we get there :)