You might want to unfollow us...
Our content has always been very Rust focused. We love Rust. Beyond the language, we love the Rust community. And, our highest purpose has always been to help those in the community find ways to support their families through rewarding work. 🧵
@_filtra missed this before. tl;dr: generative AI is _probably_ okay to use in safety-critical industries, but it needs to be treated with care, like any tool. thus far i haven't heard cogent arguments against it.
CUDA, CUDA, CUDA... What if there was a different, open way to write highly-efficient GPU kernels?
This is the big swing that @Tracel_AI is taking. And, guess what... Rust is key to their approach. Check out our podcast with Tracel CEO Nathaniel Simard (linked below):
thanks a bunch to Markus Hosch of BMW for sharing with us about what they're seeing in Eclipse S-CORE creating Rust bindings on some complex C++ code
another good learning experience in the @sdv.eclipse.org Rust SIG :)
(bit more detail and link to the notes in-thread)
How can @garrytan agree that you still have to read the code if the other claims he's been making are also true?
Those claims include running dozens of agents at once and pushing multi-thousand LOC PRs in a day.
Genuine question. I'm missing something about the workflow.
@herberticus That's a good question. I think focused thinking counts. Though, to your point, I often solve things almost by accident while in the car or shower or something.
Software engineers, how many hours of ACTUAL work do you do a day? (Be very honest)
Work is when you are exerting yourself (a noticeable level of effort) to move a project forward. So, notably, being in office or in front of your computer doesn't meet the threshold for work.
Software engineers, how many hours of ACTUAL work do you do a day? (Be very honest)
Work is when you are exerting yourself (a noticeable level of effort) to move a project forward. So, notably, being in office or in front of your computer doesn't meet the threshold for work.
How can @garrytan agree that you still have to read the code if the other claims he's been making are also true?
Those claims include running dozens of agents at once and pushing multi-thousand LOC PRs in a day.
Genuine question. I'm missing something about the workflow.
I think the funniest recent interaction was standing in line for coffee in SF and someone stops and goes "WAIT. WAIT HERE." (no other context yet). I'm in line so I'm not going anywhere. He runs back with his open laptop to show me Ghostty riced the fuck out. It was beautiful.
Here’s what I’d do if I was in charge of GitHub, in order:
1. Establish a North Star plan around being critical infrastructure for agentic code lifecycles and determine a set of ways to measure that.
2. Fire everyone who works on or advocates for copilot and shut it down. It’s not about the people, Im sure theres many talented people, youre just working at the wrong company.
3. Buy Pierre and launch agentic repo hosting as the first agentic product. Repos would be separate from the legacy web product to start since they’re likely burdened with legacy cross product interactions.
4. Re-evaluate all product lines and initiatives against the new North Star. I suspect 50% get cut (to make room for different ones).
The big idea is all agentic interactions should critically rely on GitHub APIs. Code review should be agentic but the labs should be building that into GH (not bolted in through GHA like today, real first class platform primitives). GH should absolutely launch an agent chat primitive, agent mailboxes are obviously good. Etc. GH should be a platform and not an agent itself.
This is going to be very obviously lacking since I only have external ideas to work off of and have no idea how GitHub internals are working, what their KPIs are or what North Star they define, etc.
But, with imperfect information, this is what I’d do.