<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Hacker News: SignalStackDev</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=SignalStackDev</link><description>Hacker News RSS</description><docs>https://hnrss.org/</docs><generator>hnrss v2.1.1</generator><lastBuildDate>Thu, 28 May 2026 20:14:53 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hnrss.org/user?id=SignalStackDev" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"></atom:link><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by SignalStackDev in "Writing code is cheap now"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>The linked article is worth reading alongside this one.<p>The thing I'd add from running agents in actual production (not demos, but workflows executing unattended for weeks): the hard part isn't code volume or token cost. It's state continuity.<p>Agents hallucinate their own history. Past ~50-60 turns in a long-running loop, even with large context windows, they start underweighting earlier information and re-solving already-solved problems. File-based memory with explicit retrieval ends up being more reliable than in-context stuffing - less elegant but more predictable across longer runs.<p>Second hard part: failure isolation. If an agent workflow errors at step 7 of 12, you want to resume from step 6, not restart from zero. Most frameworks treat this as an afterthought. Checkpoint-and-resume with idempotent steps is dramatically more operationally stable.<p>Agree it's not just habits - the infrastructure mental model has to change too. You're not writing programs so much as engineering reliability scaffolding around code that gets regenerated anyway.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 23 Feb 2026 18:01:20 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47126051</link><dc:creator>SignalStackDev</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47126051</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47126051</guid></item></channel></rss>