Hacker News: lrsaturnino

New comment by lrsaturnino in "Ask HN: Where is the programming profession going?"

lrsaturnino — Thu, 25 Jun 2026 04:03:26 +0000

I've posted a recent article about the future of software development https://saturnino.substack.com/p/out-of-the-loop?r=7eqhw&utm...

Basically, in a decade or so, we'll be completely out of the loop in software development; even this title won't exist anymore (like the 2000's webmaster). We'll still be around, but with different roles.

New comment by lrsaturnino in "The 2-Year Apartment Rule"

lrsaturnino — Thu, 18 Jun 2026 12:00:34 +0000

so as everything in life. your relationships, your car, your job. Everything requires maintenance, and from the brand-new version, it is ONLY and ALWAYS downhill unless YOU keep things up.

New comment by lrsaturnino in "[dead]"

lrsaturnino — Wed, 17 Jun 2026 03:27:23 +0000

GLM 5.2, with the help of GPT 5.5, presented results on par with the Fable model.

GLM 5.2 had wall times that were 3x longer than Fable's. It also stored ~10GB of inference-thinking logs on my hard drive, compared to ~1 GB for GLM 5.1. This suggests GLM 5.2 has a much deeper thinking iteration (10x more) than its predecessor.

Fable stored KBs, but Claude is known to be hiding inference logs, so it's unclear if there's an efficiency/inference gap between these models.

GLM 5.2 run cost me ~US$3, while Fable run cost me ~US$9.

GLM 5.2 is 3x cheaper but takes ~4x longer to generate results. This suggests a correlation between the data on why one might be cheaper but slower, the other is faster but costlier (e.g., datacenter hardware tier, availability, services). So, even though the results are on par, this doesn't mean there's an efficiency leap for GLM 5.2 - they might have cost the same if GLM 5.2 had the same wall time; and if that's the case, Fable is far ahead.

Nonetheless, this shows we can have GLM 5.2 working on production-grade codebases, combined with an SOTA model as a reviewer.

New comment by lrsaturnino in "Jobs was right. Gates was wrong"

lrsaturnino — Wed, 29 Apr 2026 00:22:20 +0000

Thanks - fixed.

New comment by lrsaturnino in "Jobs was right. Gates was wrong"

lrsaturnino — Wed, 29 Apr 2026 00:21:51 +0000

Thanks - yes, I agree, and already I knew this was a thing. I just haven't yet concretely made the actual math, and it left me baffled - Anthropic and OpenAI are charging 1/3 of the COST tops.

Jobs was right. Gates was wrong

lrsaturnino — Tue, 28 Apr 2026 18:41:09 +0000

Article URL: https://saturnino.substack.com/p/jobs-was-right-gates-was-wrong

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47938646

Points: 23

# Comments: 6

Software as Electricity

lrsaturnino — Wed, 15 Apr 2026 14:57:22 +0000

Article URL: https://saturnino.substack.com/p/software-as-electricity

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47779984

Points: 1

# Comments: 0

A Glimpse into the Future of Software Development

lrsaturnino — Wed, 15 Apr 2026 04:48:51 +0000

Article URL: https://saturnino.substack.com/p/out-of-the-loop

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47774799

Points: 1

# Comments: 0

New comment by lrsaturnino in "Has the cost of building software dropped 90%?"

lrsaturnino — Tue, 09 Dec 2025 00:45:15 +0000

The cost of building the first version of FB has dropped 90% The cost of building the next FB stays the same

More sophisticated tools mean more refined products.

If an easier and cheaper method for working carbon fiber becomes broadly available, it won't mean you get less money; it means you'll now be cramming carbon fiber in the silverware, in the shoes, in baby strollers, EVERYWHERE. The cost of a carbon fiber bike will drop 90%, but teams will be doing a LOT more.

You could say the cost per line of code has dropped 90%, but the number of lines of code written will 100x.