Iโm an insane person who built their own coding harness, in Rust. Iโve called it Rho. Please forgive this landing page: https://rho-code.dev I just wanted an easy central spot.
Not insane at all. People should build their own instead of using other people's agents. It's easy to do and the results can be great for you. I've built several; one that is effectively "stuck" in Kakoune: youtube.com/โฆ/playlistYouTubeLLMs stuck in Kakoune
Yeah. It's a very large project with lots of dependencies. <The system prompt is long and wastes tokens. If you have ideas for tools (or automations like the agents.sh "loop" I wrote) it's easier if you understand the harness.
Yea but happy to see a lot of new posts! That's the reward.
@thechelsukprofilefollowCurrently in remission from ME/CFS after 3+ years. Occasional software engineering leader, app developer, blogger, zwifter, and just being online.wrote:
NIH syndrome? I am guilty of it too. I love implementing things from scratch, you learn a lot by doing so and you get to own the codebase end-to-end, so no surprises and fighting around othersโ choices. It can get exhausting too though, in the end I succumb to using off-the-shelf components because my primary goals move at a higher level.
I don't see much point in trying to build software at a "higher level", like whole products and services. I'm going to go down low and train myself on the fundamentals. Hopefully in time I'll be able to contribute to the foundational bits.
You're right, it does get exhausting. At some point you just want to rebuild everything, which is not possible.
I'm going to go down low and train myself on the fundamentals.
When I wrote an HTTP sever (albeit HTTP/1.1), I learned how primitive the HTTP protocol its magic became a skill. It is freeing understanding how things work and allows me to choose where to spend time with more intention.
Not that I think we're close to a canonical definition (as if we'll ever all agree on one) but my team has defacto adopted the definition of code that the developer responsible for it doesn't understand, approve of and essentially has now honestly reviewed. Basically anything which leads to cognitive debt.
I agree, I don't think that there will ever be one canonical definition, but I like this definition as well, as it places the onus on the actual person creating the slop. Thank you for sharing!
I think yes, but precisely NOT "at a philosophical level". You can have it only if you get your hands dirty and build it yourself. I think @stagasprofilefollowcreative technologist
creator of textlog already proved this, just as a close example.
If speaking on a philosophical level, then first we have to ask: whatโs โniceโ and whatโs โto haveโ ๐
@asmund๐ฅทprofilefollowFather, getting older every day, technologist, enterprise architect @ work, like to explore tech. Like to keep it simple and work in the shell, write in vim, prefer Debian if I have the choice. Plays saxophone and clarinet. Enjoy motorcycle riding, photography, hiking. Christian.replied to@chanuxprofilefollowI ain't no nothing!:
If you consider what you have nice, you can have nice things. If your expectations to your surroundings are very very low, you will be amazed with all the nice things you get from people you meet through your day. My personal approach. #simplelifenotesfollow