Now they want more.

I've sold to customers that pay $2XX,XXX annually and it was never an issue. I wouldn't worry about it, but be prepared to answer security questionnaires.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48147843

Points: 15

# Comments: 2

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47716731

Points: 2

# Comments: 0

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47577192

Points: 2

# Comments: 6

When you share code it's presumably for people to use. It is often useful to have commit history to establish a few things (trust in the author, see their thought process, debug issues, figure out how to use things, etc).

> You completely failed to establish why making a single commit is indicative of it being garbage.

A single commit doesn't mean it's garbage. It erodes trust in the author and the project. It makes it hard for me to use the code, which is presumably why you share code.

My garbage code response was in regards to the growing trend to code (usually with ai) some idea, slap an initial commit on it and throw it on GitHub (like using a napkin and tossing it in the rubbish bin).

Have you looked at the code? It was clearly generated in one form or another (see the other comments).

The author created a new GitHub account and this is their first repository. It looks to be generated from another code base as a sorta amalgamation (either through code generation, ai, or another means).

We're supposed to implicitly trust this person (new GitHub account, first repository, no commit history, 10k+ lines of complicated code).

Jia Tan worked way too hard, all they had to do was upload a few files and share on HN :)

My hunch tells me it may be the result of macro-expansion in C (cc -E ...), etc. So it's likely there's a larger code base with multiple files and they expanded it into a one large C file (sometimes called an amalgamation build) and called it a day.

By they, I mean the OP, a script or an AI (or all three).

There was once a time when sharing code had a social obligation.

This attitude you have isn't in the same spirit. GitHub (or any forge) was never meant to be a garbage dumping ground for whatever idea you cooked up at 3AM.

When you see an error like, "error: expected ‘,’ or ‘;’ before ‘include’" you know what happened and where to look because you've seen it a hundred times before.

AI takes that away. It's not inherently bad, it's great that it can solve those sort of things for you. However, the second order effects are terrible. You end up never developing that experience. Is this simply evolution of the craft? Is that experience no longer necessary?

I could be wrong, but I believe that experience is necessary and losing it will be a net negative. Furthermore, the reduction of experience will increase dependency on these tools and the companies that provide them.

I won't be using Rust moving forward. I do like the language but it's complicated (hard to hold in your head). I feel useless without the LSP and I don't like how taxing the compiler and LSP are on my system.

It feels really wasteful to burn CPU and spin up fans every time I save a file. I find it hard to justify using 30+ GB of memory to run an LSP and compiler. I know those are tooling complaints and not really the fault of the language, but they go hand in hand. I've tried using a ctags-based workflow using vim's built in compiler/makeprg, but it's less than ideal.

I also dislike the crates.io ecosystem. I hate how crates.io requires a GitHub account to publish anything. We are already centralized around GitHub and Microsoft, why give them more power? There's an open issue on crates.io to support email based signups but it has been open for a decade.